Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 15

< January 14	January 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

f

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arsis (band)[edit]

Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) – (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsis (band)===|View AfD]])

No more notable than 25,000 other bands on metal-archives.com Wikipedia cannot be flooded with all of them. Have released albums, but are nn and haven't charted. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If their record labels are the right kind, then the multiple albums are enough to demonstrate notability. --Eastmain (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup: Remember that not everything on WP:MUSIC has to be met. If only one thing is met that's enough to establish notability and in this case they have released 4 albums on reasonably major labels. I think WP:SNOW is in terms with this AfD. Although the article could use cleanup and have a ref tag added. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 00:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With two studio albums and a third on the way, seems enough to establish notability. WWGB (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Shall Perish[edit]

Delete unnotable band, author said it should be deleted, vanity J.J.Sagnella 07:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 12:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~If that's the case, then Speedy G7.~~--み使い Mitsukai 15:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Survived Speedy. That's why it's still here. J.J.Sagnella 16:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, then let's just play the Strong Delete card, then.--み使い Mitsukai 16:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mitsukai Ruby 16:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Already been deleted once. Author says a new album is coming out this year. If that happens, it may be notable. Otherwise, it's just as non-notable as when it was first deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete this, ASP is releaseing their new album in JULY of 2006, a full length on a major worldwide label Nuclear Blast Records.

Keep major record label, touring band, notable and on Amazon.com 3H 05:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Miller[edit]

The "up and coming" might squeeze out a notability for her, but "elusive and rarely exhibited artist" tells me she isn't notable. Corvus cornix_talk 23:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the article is premature. She should exhibit much more before she deserves an article. --JamesJJames (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 11:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems opinionated and/or self-promoting. --Revanche (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete mostly for more solid arguments from the Delete side.--JForget 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Journal Experts[edit]

This is a recreated and disputed speedied article for a company that doesn't meet the notability guidelines; no reliable sources that attest to the notability of the company. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This company is used by scholars in nearly every country in the world, and it is affecting scholarship in nearly every academic discipline. It is worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Many, many articles are about purely local businesses; this one is global. Scholars in every country are eager to find an NPOV treatment of this company. Many scholarly journals recommend this company for their non-English-speaking authors who need help with their English. A web search on "American Journal Experts" will prove this is true. The evaluations of the company by those peer-reviewed journals are sufficient to establish the notability of the company.BlueDevil1 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~(A7)~~ Fails notability for corporations because no reliable third-party sources that I can find mention it. Appears to have conflict of interest issue as well. Considering that the article confesses to the company's use of spam to attract employees and business, this article appears to be part of that effort as well. MKolt now 00:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I feel that merely asserting notability reminds me of garage bands who could assert notability by claiming to be "the best band in Surrey" (for instance), I will consider this article not to satisfy the conditions in WP:CSD. MKolt now 06:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless there are some third party sources. Not a speedy since it asserts notability. DGG (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the user, some third party sources previously mentioned only on the talk page have been added to the article.BlueDevil1 (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company is small, but a lot of people around the world will be looking for a synthesis of information about it, and we should want them to look here. Bazoomti (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does nothing to address the issue of verifiability through reliable third-party sources. The onus of demonstrating notability rests on those wanting the article kept. Do forgive if this sounds WP:BITEy, but this contributor is practically a single purpose account. Its first dozen edits are spelling corrections, which are much appreciated. Ironically, that could indicate that it has a conflict of interest since the company in question is in the business of copyediting. MKolt now 15:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Insufficient sourcing to verify notability. Unless independent, reliable, and verifiable sources can be listed that support notability under WP:CORP or the general notability guidelines. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BlueDevil1 (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BlueDevil1 has added links to several reputable journals who recommend authors to use the services of this company. They seem like good third party sources, so keep and clean up, not delete. --Bduke (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CORP states in its notes that "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." I do not interpret that to mean that a scholarly journal recommending a service satisfies notability. The journals themselves are reliable third-party sources for the topics they cover, but they are not writing about this company in a scholarly capacity. MKolt now 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they have considered it notable enough to recommend to their authors. I company like this would have to have massive notability to have a scholarly article written about it. I think you are being too rigorous in interpreting the guideline. --Bduke (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the mechanic on Main Street for changing your timing belt, but that does not make him notable. I was making the distinction between when an otherwise reliable source writes about its field of expertise and when it simply makes mention or endorsement of a service. This company continues to fail WP:CORP for pretty obvious reasons. If it truly were notable, there would be an article about it somewhere, as opposed to a reference to it. So far, the author has supplied testimonials from happy customers, but that does not establish notability. For all we know, the testimonials could be paid advertisements. I dug through the first two hundred google hits, and they were all either testimonials or self-promotion. MKolt now 03:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are just going to have to disagree. I see no comparison between you recommending a mechanic and a reputable scientific journal recommending an editor to improve the articles that they will be publishing. I agree that more sources would be welcome however. --Bduke (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having looked at the sources provided, they basically amount to advertisements (providing product code for discount, etc). Ads are not considered to meet the guidelines for notability. Pastordavid (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 6010[edit]

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide. Too few substantial and reliable references exist to support more than a review or an advert. Mikeblas (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads too much like an advertisement and has almost no notability to it. Nor do I think it ever can. Redphoenix526 (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mobileburn review could grant notability, however I'm not sure just how special a review by them would be. Until someone gives me reason to believe otherwise, I shall believe that it does grant this specific phone notability, but only barely. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedeia is not a product directory. It is not clear that the two websites used as refs qualify as reliable sources, if they just put up a review of every celphone released, then it is more of a directory listing. Some degree of selectivity is needed to show that having a review there makes a phone notable. Edison (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant advert. Axl (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, people should not use so called "blatant advert" when it is also at the same time blatantly clear it is not existing there because it was written up as an advert. Mathmo ^Talk 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Paul Ney[edit]

This page was started by User:Columbano, a single-purpose account with the probable intention of self-glorification of the subject as well as providing links to his personal websites (see here). The subject is a French "journalist" who has written in several French magazines, but there is precious little written about him. There appears to be no material about him in the language of William Shakespeare. Of the French sources available, some appear to fail WP:RS, and many link to the subject's own website. In addition, there have been recent attempts, possibly by the subject or his proxies, to remove material which is potentially damaging to him. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being a conflict of interest is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Having checked the sources, I believe this person (just about) passes the notability requirements for biographies. Terraxos (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. As long as people will use Wikipedia as a self-promotion tool, there will be a credibility problem. Please remember that the same self-promotion page in the French Wikipedia was deleted ([1]) after the exact same problems happened (extreme self-glorification, self-citation, immediate removal of anything seen as critical, insults flying around, legal threats, etc). The guy is quite famous in France, not as a journalist, but as the worst possible sort of internet troll ever. Guillermito (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete – I agree with Guillermito and Sc straker. --JamesJJames (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if there is doubt, a better article can be resubmitted later. --Revanche (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 00:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Art Publishers[edit]

Speedy Advertising. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Delete Doesn't meet notability requirements per WP:CORP, no non-trivial sources available, morever, there are several other companies with the same name which makes it all the more difficult. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- This is an important venue in the landscape of current publishing. It is a means for many small institutional catalogs to get out in the world and as such is a significant asset to the arts communities. I strong urge not deleting on grounds that it is advertising. If there is constructive feedback to be recommended for re-tooling or re-writing then offer those. Please don't delete out of hand for procedure of for lack of knowledge of the field. Thanks. C dog taylor (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be as it may, it doens't meet WP:ORG, as far as anyone can demonstrate. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - a Google search reveals plenty of coverage, but most of it trivial, such as [2]. The mere fact that they've published many books doesn't (in itself) show notability, but it suggests that they might be. Better sources need to be found, but it seems to me that they are significant as publishers, in the New York art world if nowhere else. Terraxos (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google news search finds news stories about this company in Afterimage (July 2005, re a partnership with the Aperture Foundation), Publishers Weekly (January 2007, re a new web site; February 2007, re some internal personnel changes), not to mention plenty of coverage for their individual publications. A variation of the search finds Art Business News (September 2002 re their relationship to MoMA), Publishers Weekly (July 2004 and again in August 2005, both re their warehousing facilities), a recommendation in the New York Times to shop for art books through their catalog, some of the same stories again, and many minor mentions and quotes in other stories. Seems to satisfy the primary criterion of WP:CORP to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears notable. Do not see any reasonable way this could remotely be considered advertising. Plenty of content. Needs sourcing.Wikidemo (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein et al. But the article needs to be clearer as to what they are: distributors, publishers and ??? retail booksellers? Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Internet.--Kubigula (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Highway[edit]

This was one of my cleanup projects a while ago. I hate to exacerbate systemic bias by deleting an article about an Indian periodical, but unfortunately, there are no references, and I wasn't able to find anything relevant on a search engine. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless some kind of sources can be provided. Appears to be simply non-notable. Terraxos (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if deleted, it should redirect to Internet, as one of the more common monikers used for it. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify why-redirect? I could not even find a single reliable source about this magazine.
--Avinesh Jose T 06:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They said, and i quote, "it should redirect to Internet, as one of the more common monikers used for it". -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments above me. I see no sources to indicate notability, and since Digital Highway might be used as another term for the internet, I agree that redirecting to Internet is appropriate. I see no particular reason to keep the article's history. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still can't find any sources on this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Feel free to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jundland Wastes[edit]

Non notable location on the planet Tatooine, warrants at most a sentence in that article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator's assessment. There are no sources to indicate that this a notable plot element, so the content should be removed. I support either outright deletion with recreation as redirect afterwards, or only a redirect to Tatooine equally. Leave it up to relevant editors' discretion as to what should be mentioned in that article. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tatooine. This could have been done without coming to AfD. DGG (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tatooine, as per nom's suggestion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, does this actually appear in any fiction over then the manual?--Him and a dog 08:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ski-Whoop[edit]

The article was proposed for deletion on the grounds that it was a neologism, per section 2 of WP:NEO. My additional concern about this term is that of the 7 Google hits on this spelling, none appear to easily conform to "Philadelphia usage". As such, I believe the term is either non-notable or unverifiable, or perhaps this a hoax article. Kife 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you need to at least pretend to cite a reason for removing a prod notice, not "tweaking definition"? I believe that the prod could've been restored as it was removed out of process. But as that is neither here nore there any longer, I support deletion for the reason cited in the prod nomination. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the speed with which the notice was removed, and the fact that it wasn't accompanied by obvious vandalism, I chose to follow the spirit of Wikipedia:PROD#Conflicts and assume the removal was for a reason, albeit not yet stated. --Kife 08:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unsourced violation of WP:NEO.Earthdirt (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This WP:NEO does not meet notability requirements. - Headwes (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism per WP:NEO Mayalld (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, unsourced, neologism --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 01:37, January 21, 2008

Order 66[edit]

This article is an in-universe plot repetition of a small part of the Star Wars film Revenge of the Sith. As that article is a featured one, and it already covers the salient points of this event, this is wholly duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This particular article is too much detail, and is appropriate for a specialized site, not WP. It is adequately covered already. DGG (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FANCRUFT all the way. Topic is covered quite well at the Star Wars wiki. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if you must delete it -- the old inclusive wikipedia was more fun -- then do at least setup a redirect link to somewhere useful, the Star Wars 2 page if nothing else. -- Horkana 06:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silhouettes and Cigarettes[edit]

Spam for a non-notable, not-yet-released movie. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable film by non-notable people. Corvus cornix_talk 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the only links are to YouTube and IMDb, neither of which are even remotely reliable, this fails verifiability, notability and crystal. Probably could've been speedied. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue with the reliability of IMDb in principle. I do, however, have a problem with the fact that the IMDb link in question doesn't actually verify anything contained in this article. Looks like promotional spam to me. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The imdb link only goes to the page of one of the actors in the film, and this film isn't even listed on her page. The link is useless, in reality. Corvus cornix_talk 00:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Diversity Alliance (novel). Non-admin closure. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity Alliance[edit]

This article is a repetition of trivial plot information from the Star Wars universe with no assertion of notability through multiple reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth this is the unappended article, but not Diversity Alliance (novel) is completely beyond me. I see nothing to assert notability, and believe that is should clearly not be an article for this reason. I propose that the article in its current form be deleted, the novel article be moved to the unappended title (until it comes under scrutiny as well, as it also lacks notability), and the now-created redirect at the (novel) title be deleted, as it is unlikely to be a search term. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by seresin--this is not substantial enough to stand on its own. Merges do not require AfD, and they're often a better choice than delete.DGG (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Diversity Alliance (novel), as suggested by seresin. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Seresin. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Recreate as re-direct to Mon Calamari (planet) if one is needed. Pastordavid (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dac Council[edit]

This article is an in-universe repetition of the plot from the Star Wars prequel trilogy, and as such is totally duplicative of those articles and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the article on the planet that this council governs doesn't even link to this article, I doubt it's even remotely notable in-universe; it surely isn't notable outside of it. So I support removal of the content, either by deleting and a subsequent recreation as a redirect to Mon Calamari (planet), (which should also probably be deleted) or only a redirect. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mon Calamari (planet). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hopelessly in-universe and unsourced. A redirect might be an option but I doubt that one is necessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Droid Army[edit]

This article is a one paragraph in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Star Wars prequel trilogy, and is totally duplicative of that information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a real-world notable element of the movie, or wherever this comes from in the bloated Star Wars universe. So I support eliminating the content as its own page, either by deletion and subsequent recreation as a redirect to Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, or only a redirect. There might be a more appropriate target article, but this is the best one I found. Leave it up to relevant editors' discretion as to how best discuss the content (as it is somewhat important to the story) in whatever is the ultimate target article. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge Seems to be moret han a single paragraph. I consider it possibly a notable element of the series, but the description is not adequately integrated into the overall treatment. Neither seresin nor I seem to be able to completely figure out where it goes. DGG (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just one paragraph of plot summary that is already included in many other articles about this; a category would seem to be more fitting, as I don't think a list is doable due to the inability to source most of these. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Battle Droid which seems to be the most duplicated article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to The Bacta War (novel). Editors encouraged to merge appropriate material as needed, and to boldly redirect/merge such articles without coming to AfD. Pastordavid (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bacta War[edit]

This article asserts no notability through multiple, reliable secondary sources, and as such only consists of plot repetition in an in-universe way from the Star Wars expanded universe, and is duplicative the the plot sections of the articles that cover the expanded universe and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the important parts appropriately. As a separate article, this is excessive detail for a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia DGG (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It belongs on the page for the article from whence it came; it has little notability or credibility by itself. – Mipadi (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sourcing is a major concern that wasn't settled in the time span of the AFD Secret ^account 01:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Saint Michael[edit]

Yamakiri ^T_C § 01-15-2008 • 23:01:15 23:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As De-Prodder. Yamakiri ^T_C § 01-17-2008 • 01:37:43
Comment I fixed this AfD discussion for you. ~~Can you please provide a rationale?~~ Never mind, done. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Contested prod. Prod nominated by SarekOfVulcan with reason: "No assertion of notability, despite being tagged since October. Google searching brings up lots of Knights of Saint Michael, but very few that apply to this show." Procedural completion of AfD. Tevildo (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs improvement, but the subject qualifies as notable. Majoreditor (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, a TV series is a no-brainer- there's no shortage of sources. But, these sources so far are either minor local interest stories, or the page that belongs to EWTN. This certainly does not look like one of EWTN's more significant series. Delete unless properly sourced with independent sources providing nontrivial coverage of the actual series. Friday (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as prodder) per Friday.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krytos virus[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is just a repetition of the plot of various Expanded universe books in an in-universe way with no secondary sourcing. As such, it is not notable, duplicative of the plot sections of the expanded universe books, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is excessive detail for a general encyclopedia, and the material can be and probably has been, incorporated into more comprehensive articles in WP. It does in fact serve only as a plot recapitulation. DGG (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing more needs to be added. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What can I say, I was young and naïve when I wrote this. It's more appropriate in the article for the book in which it occurs. – Mipadi (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Hearst Elementary School - Del Cerro, San Diego[edit]

A non-notable elementary school; the article's creator is determined to have it here for all the wrong reasons (see below). The single citation, if you look at it, seems to be a press release written by the school. The author has COI issues and has returned the article after five speedy deletions, so I'll ask the closing administrator, if the decision is to delete, for SALT. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article's author states: "The wikipedia page requires an open environment where students, staff, and community members can add facts about the early history of the school as it nears its 50 anniversary." This seems to run up against the policy that Wikipedia is not a social networking site; what's proposed is a page full of personal and unverifiable assertions with no references or sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V due to lack of sources, WP:COI too. Agree with salting the article since it's already been deleted 5 times. Also, schools CAN be speedy deleted, it's just that some admins are reluctant to do so (but there's no rule saying they can't). TJ Spyke 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello...I don't wish this to be a social network site, but a collaborative, factual history of an award winning school. I intend to add many independent citations regarding this noteworthy school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlawv (talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In another example of the "you won't believe the things mainstream media deign to notice" phenomenon, their 2nd-grade science fair was written up in USA Today [3]. On the more amusing side, they also suspended a city school board member's kid for bringing a butterknife to class [4].cab (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userpage - move it to the author's userpage until it's up to snuff. - mattbuck 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Noroton (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt per nom. Chris (クリス) (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since the nomination the necessary multiple, secondary sources have been added to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — notability has been established with the many references, especially by a national newspaper. Nyttend (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how references about issues which are common at a high proportion (most?) schools of this type (eg, funding shortfalls, traffic flow problems and the odd dumb kid with a knife) establish notability - schools are not automatically notable, so a reference which demonstrates why the school is somehow notably different from the norm is needed. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "a reference which demonstrates why the school is somehow notably different from the norm is needed" is wholly inaccurate. A football club doesn't have to differ from other football clubs; a pop CD doesn't have to be different from other pop CDs. What they all have in common is a need to meet WP:N which is met by multiple, independent sources. The fact that many schools have the same issues is irrelevant; what counts is that they are reported by the media. TerriersFan (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Notability cited. Its not very interesting though Victuallers (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - asserts notability, well-sourced, balanced (e.g., traffic problems), and appears to have been fixed up. Maybe the local news has a particular interest in this school. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per non-trivial secondary source coverage. Cited sources are recent, but Google searches suggest more RS coverage over time. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now that CaliforniaAliBaba has done such sterling work at researching and providing references, I'm actually tempted to change what's left of my mind; an excellent piece of work has been done here and we owe CaliforniaAliBaba a vote of thanks for rescuing this article. It is now much more balanced than it was ever likely to be when written by a member of the school's PTA. I still don't think elementary schools are inherently notable but I have no problem with someone closing this out as a "Keep". Accounting4Taste:talk 15:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. I remain neutral on whether or not this article should be here, but my philosophy is that we might as well make sure it doesn't remain so bad that it reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. I suppose I'm not so much disappointed by the "keep" consensus for this article as I am irritated by the mainstream media and newspaper-purchasing public which seems to feel some rich kids' science projects and traffic problems [5] are more worthy of notice than, say, the best-selling book in China [6] or the first female prime minister of Rwanda [7]. (Keep that in mind next time you see that same mainstream media wikigroaning about how our Romulan Star Empire articles are longer and more detailed than our Roman Empire articles). cab (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well cited, meets WP:N. Midorihana^{~いいですね？} 20:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good job in improving.Noroton (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Mandy[edit]

Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO guidelines for pornographic actresses. No sources to confirm notability. Model is likely not notable. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Epbr123 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable porn actress per nominator. --Lockley (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - prominent adult movie actress. Johntex\^talk 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sourcing, with no effort having been made to provide any. Mango juice^talk 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of consequence found under any of the 3 names listed in the article on Google, AVN or Xbiz. Doesn't look like she's done much outside of previously having her own site. That didn't get much coverage either from what I can tell. Horrorshowj (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable coverage. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Log of Additions and Removals to Virgin TV[edit]

Per WP:LC and WP:NOT#INFO; this is not encyclopedic and furthermore is unsourced and thus appears to violate WP:OR. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It also seems to violate WP:NOT#DIR, Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics. Simply knowing when channels come and go is not notable. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The good news is is that this article is almost certainly verifiable. However, that is not the only inclusion standard. In this case, I agree that WP:NOT#DIR applies. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most if not all of the information on this page is indeed verifiable and it is not original research. References would be added if this page is not deleted but obviously with a deletion date looming it's unlikely that anyone will bother going through the entire list until it's known that the page is safe.
A number of forum users were interested in knowing what channels have been removed and added to the Virgin Media TV service since Virgin have now indicated that there is no bandwidth available for new channels even after removing a handful of channels. On top this many customers were already disgruntled at the lack of channels being regularly when compared to the competition. List of channels on Virgin TV removes this information on the day a channel is added or removed and so is of little use to them.
If the article is being removed because Wikipedia is not a directory, an indiscriminate collection of information or this page is considered a trivial list then may I ask why List of Sky Defunct Channels has not been nominated for deletion? As it seems to cover a similar field of information.
If you do have any suggestions for any improvements that would allow this page to meant Wikipedia policy then please state them as this is only my first page. Jasmeet 181 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, if this page is principally by and for users of some forum, then I must point out WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, which is to say that there may be a more appropriate place for this information to be hosted; I must admit that as far as I can see, disgruntled customers have little to do with the encyclopedic nature of an article. There is no reason why one of these disgruntled customers couldn't host this information on any of the numerous free web hosts out there. However, getting back to the matter at hand, with regard to List of Sky Defunct Channels, I will refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; in short, the fact that some other page of a certain class exists on Wikipedia is not an endorsement of the existence of other pages of that nature. There are other pages of the form "List of 'service' channels", and I would say that they could just as well be brought up for deletion; they are unencyclopedic and WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:LC would appear to apply to the lot of them. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; Phil Bridger's sources look pretty solid.--Kubigula (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies[edit]

Contested prod of an unsourced article on a non-notable organization. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google news archive, book and scholar searches show clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Phil Bridger's searches demonstrate notability; lots of references to source material. --Lquilter (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (contacted via IRC) Phoenix -wiki 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 4 (Monmouth County, New Jersey)[edit]

Route has no clains of notability (even under USRD). The article has remained a stub since its creation in October 2007. ^Mitch32^contribs 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be merged to List of county routes in Monmouth County, New Jersey? You don't need AFD to do that. --NE2 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UniKey[edit]

See parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SecuTech Solution Inc. Author removed csd tag without explanation. Was nominated as Wikipedia:CSD#A7 a non-notable speedy delete. Phatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and agree with nom that this AfD should be linked. --- tqbf 22:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an advertisment that fails to establish notability. If notability can be established, I'll happily change my vote. -Verdatum (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, seems like spam/advertisement. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another advertisement posing as an encyclopaedia article. Non-notable to boot. --WebHamster 01:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Raul654 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Average surface temperature[edit]

Material already is covered at Instrumental temperature record. This looks like a duplicate article that never went anywhere. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - Merge information not contained in the better article and redirect to it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, I don't see any new info to merge (although I might have missed it!) KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, unlikely to be developed much further independent of the target article. GregorB (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Delete and redirect per nom. --John (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing there to merge (as I said in december 2006 :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect per nom. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Raul654 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing new there. Brusegadi (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WMConnolley point. Tparameter (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to have any purpose, per the reasons above. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The intro to Instrumental temperature record can lead to believe that it does not cover near-surface temperature, what perhaps lead to the herein article's creation. Perhaps this should be addressed if Average surface temperature is deleted. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahti Paunu[edit]

nn actor and singer. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His group, Rajaton, might possibly be notable, but the individual singers in it almost certainly aren't. Terraxos (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable singer. The page hasn't been touched/improved since May 2007, and the original editor hasn't done anything with it since then. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 01:38, January 21, 2008

2AM-BBS[edit]

NN BBS Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The statement "copies of this software were in use world-wide" seems to be a claim of notability, and http://www.google.com/search?q=2AM-BBS shows several ghits. --Eastmain (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. By the way, what's with the irrelevant external link? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it claims to be notable, there are no sources provided to confirm this, thus putting the article in violation of both the notability and verifiability guidelines. As a side note to the nomintaor, please be a bit more expansive in further AfD noms. "NN BBS" doesn't give much rationale, and to someone who is not familiar with wikijargon, means nothing. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Can't find any secondary sources on this one... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Based on http://www.archive.org/details/bbs_documentary there will be sources. The ghits seem to indicate that it was in fact widely used, though not the very most commmon software. All major software from the period should be covered in WP.DGG (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect all per consensus. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody's Sweetheart (album)[edit]

Non-notable independently released album by LeAnn Rimes. Only source appears to be a Russian fan site, which I'm pretty sure doesn't meet WP:RS; a search for other sources turned up nothing, not even All Music Guide.

Also listing two related albums, for the same reason:

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LeAnn Rimes discography. Catchpole (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TPH's assessment of the notability of these articles, and Catchpole's suggested course of action. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 00:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Secret ^account 01:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge - I couldn't find anything that falls under Reliable Sources, but I found a ton of links in German and this, which says that the albums either actually exist, or somebody pulled off one of the most thorough, useless hoaxes ever. My vote would be to merge with the discography section if WP:SIZE doesn't become an issue. Torc2 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LeAnn Rimes discography per Catchpole. I can't find anything much about these albums from using Google quickly (except the aforementioned Russian fansite and these Wikipedia articles. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Countries[edit]

Originally prodded, but I take it the creator contests the prod. This article does not define what is meant by ethnic country, nor does it state why the United States or Canada, just to name those two, are excluded from the list. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see why this article is up for deletion but I would also argue that it has potential - there just needs to be a strongly justified defintion and reference to academic sources. I think what the author is trying to get across is that these countries' associate with one particular ethnic group (Bosnia and Herzegovina should not be on there as they are divided by at least two), Hungary is not on there as it is the "home" of a number of Romanies and consequently uses different languages etc). It should be categorise and worked on as Social Geography. --Nengscoz416 (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After writing this I remembered the proper term for what I was describing and wiki'd it. The term is nation state which already has a good article in which case Delete. If I was incorrect in what I think the article is about then Delete as Human Geography was my major and I should know what the article is talking about.Nengscoz416 (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article borders on nonsense; the primary definition for "Ethnic countries" is given as "A member from a particular ethnic group," which - aside from defining a person as a country - is almost without meaning. Every human being is a member of an ethnic group, but the article seems to be a list of countries in which caucasians are not in prominence (note the absence of the United States, Britain and Australia). I'm not seeing anything salvageable in its current state, and probably wouldn't even if "ethnic" were given its proper meaning. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nation state no? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was re-created after I nominated it for speedy deletion a couple of days ago. It is utter non-sense and reeks of POVism.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a very messy article, and I'm not sure the author(s) really applied the definitions consistently (Afghanistan, for example, has a number of ethnic groups living within its borders, which goes some way toward explaining why its politics have been so disastrous for so long, Akrotiri and Dhekelia is just a bizarre inclusion). "Nation state" is probably what was intended here, but even then I'm not sure a redirect would be a great idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONT REMOVE THIS ARTICLE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayotiko (talk • contribs) 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May we know why? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm still trying to figure out what an ethnic country is. I'm gathering that it's one where people of a certain ethnic group are together inside a boundary, but the countries listed make no sense. North Korea, which has one of the most homogenous populations on Earth-- something like 99 percent Korean-- isn't on here. Russia, whose boundaries include so many different groups besides the Russians, is on here. But even if the confusion is cleared up, it's unsourced; it seems a lot like original synthesis rather than a political science term; and it's an indiscriminate list. Weak delete because, theoretically, it's possible that there is some book that speaks of "ethnic countries", and it's possible someone could improve this article. Mandsford (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced OR. Biruitorul (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is, it's meaningless. The criteria by which a country fits in is totally unclear. Japan's another country that fits the given criteria but isn't there. If something dramatic happens maybe keep, but right now it's incoherent OR/nonsense.The Zig (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With a scope as wide as this article defines, it's an atlas. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the use for this. VartanM (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Ninja Game[edit]

Unnotable game, with only 72 google hits, all unsuitable for qualifying WP:N. Unsourced. Previous AfD from 2004 makes interesting reading, with one reference from a forum satisfying everyone! Marasmusine (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's always interesting to see the way things were kept/promoted to FA status back in the years before 2005, and how the standards have improved since then. Now I think there's pretty much no doubt that it's non-notable. For the record, I get 584 results on US Google, and only 62 on UK Google, with "wiki" excluded from the results of both, but even in the 584 results on the US search linked above, I can't find any reliable sources establishing notability. Myspace, Youtube, blogs, forum links, but nothing really solid. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD is pretty funny. At any rate, clearly not a notable game. There's about a kajillion drinking party games that someone made up in school one day; they need to be notable to be included here. Perhaps we could redirect to Party game, as it might be searched for. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 01:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walrus. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 02:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walrus. --JamesJJames (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walrus Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really wish wikipedia was true to it's roots and the 2004 AfD was the way things still were. If it's verifiable and vaguely notable, it's in.... Hobit (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, this isn't verifiable, or notable. If it was, we would all be !voting keep. Forums, Myspace profiles and the like are not verifiable, as even I could create either, and I could say that the Stupid Ninja Game involves wearing a chicken on your head while attempting to run up a wall. Whoever runs up the wall farthest wins. Hence why forums aren't considered reliable sources in most cases. Likewise with Myspace, Urban Dictionary, wikis (including Wikipedia itself, apart from on rare occasions) and the like. Likewise, if there were any reliable sources indicating notability, then we would agree it were notable. As it is, I get more Google hits than this game, even if we remove "wiki" from the results. Indeed, there's three people talking about me on this page alone ;). I would not, for even one moment, suggest that I am notable. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe you are notable. Hobit (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Bushmill's Choir[edit]

Delete. NN, fails WP:Music. NN band members of NN bands (other than the Gits - but that's because of their lead singer's passing. And they sucked.) EndlessDan 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable band (unless evidence of notability is provided). Terraxos (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great name, but I don't see any real indication of notability that would fulfill WP:MUSIC. Delete unless sources come forward. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or Redirect (to The Gits) per the caveat to WP:BAND#6 - "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Tevildo (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. most of the delete concerns are cleanup issues that doesn't need deletion, as for the soapbox concern, I don't see anything with the except of the title Secret ^account 01:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and domestic violence[edit]

This article was created to espouse the fringe view that Christianity is associated with domestic violence, by citing radical feminists (and I'm a feminist myself!) in order to establish this fringe view. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Pharmboy (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE Doc Strange (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if re-written. I agree that this should not be a POV fork, nor just present one side of the debate. However, I believe that this topic is a valid topic, and could be written from a NPOV, with sources and multiple POVs. I believe it was partially written as a reaction to Islam and domestic violence, and I believe that topic is clearly more notable. However, I still believe the topic of Christianity and domestic violence and arguments on whether Christianity raises, lowers or has no effects on domestic violence levels is an encyclopedic topic. Anyone willing to put some leg work into this article to improve it and make it less centered on one POV?-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the idea of the stub notice. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment The article Islam and domestic violence actually uses quotes from the koran that justify 'domestic violence' and provides more than adequate context to demonstrate that the article is about violence as justified by the actual doctrine of the faith. (BTW, I am not a fan of that article either). WP:WAX applies here as well, as you can't use the Islam article to justify the Christianity article. At this point, the current nom article can't be 'fixed' to not be a soapbox. If you want to jump in and pull some quotes out of the bible that indicate when it is acceptible to beat your wife, and provide context that ties it into how this affects people today, I will be happy to look at it and withdraw my delete opinion. Pharmboy (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest instead looking at the 12 sources cited in the article, from which this stub can obviously grow, looking at our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and using those as the basis for withdrawing your delete opinion. Your argument that the article cannot be fixed seems rather daft in the light of all of those sources just waiting to be used. And I'm sure that they aren't the only sources on this subject, by a long chalk. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe this subject is notable, and I think this reflects a conversation within and about Christianity that is not necessarily a fringe view. However, this article has little information worth retaining beyond the off-line reading list. Last edit was in mid-December; if this is still being written, I'd suggest moving to User space for further development. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your thinking does not accord with our policies. This is a collaboratively written encyclopaedia that is written by volunteers. Articles do not have owners. Stubs with potential for expansion are edited and expanded, not deleted. We don't demand that people write perfect articles ab initio, or that they write at all; and we don't try to punish them with threats of removal of articles if they don't write when we shout "frog!". We don't recognize articles as being owned by their creators. And there is no deadline by which all stubs have to be expanded or else. Uncle G (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though i am against the numerous unscientific articles concerning people's uneducated opinions about how two unrelated topics correlate, this one has absolutely no content and is in clear violation of WP:SOAP. Whether people think it "interesting" or not really has no bearing on this one. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a word for a short article that hasn't grown yet. It's "stub". I encourage you to re-read our Wikipedia:Editing policy. Perfection is not required ab initio. Nor is it required that articles be deleted just because they haven't grown yet. I encourage you to read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, too. We only delete stubs if there is no possibility for expansion. As you can see by the further reading section of this article alone, there's plenty of scope for expansion.
  It's a gross mischaracterization to refer to the various Christian theologians whose works are cited in the article as people with "uneducated opinions", by the way. Dr Marie M. Fortune, for example, served on the National Advisory Council on Violence Against Women for the U.S. Department of Justice from 1994–2002, currently serves on the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence for the U.S. Defense Department, and is the editor of the Journal of Religion and Abuse. With those credentials, she's almost certainly not a complete novice on this subject. There may be "uneducated opinions" here, but they aren't hers. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think any article that starts with the formula, "The relationship between X and Y has been discussed/studied/commented upon by Z" needs to justify why that's a notable relationship, particularly for articles with unlikely search terms as titles. I'm not against the topic per se being on Wikipedia, and I think it could potentially be done without soapboxing, but as the article now stands it contains practically no content, and is primarily a list of external recources. I think it would need to be written from the ground-up, not just re-written from what's already here. ◄Zahakiel► 22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "has been discussed/studied/commented upon by Z", where Z is more than one, is exactly what justifies that it's a notabile relationship. Being discussed in depth by multiple non-trivial published works from reliable and independent sources is what defines notability. See Wikipedia:Notability. And as noted above, at least one of the sources is a credible expert on the subject.
  And, once again: A short article with only a small amount of content is a stub. A short article with only a small amount of content, that has at least one sentence clearly explaining what the subject is and that gives you 12 sources from which you can choose to expand upon that, is a good stub. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Editing for what you are supposed to do with stubs. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Under many, probably most, circumstances I would agree with you, however I am familiar with WP:STUB, and at the very beginning, it states, "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information" (emphasis added). So what information in this short article would you say was "useful?" The fact that some theologians have commented about it (they comment about a lot of things), or that some people are shocked that there is a proposed connection? I'm afraid I disagree with your assessment; as I said, I am at a "weak" stage of delete, but I am not convinced by what you've said that this one passes the muster. I'm willing to be swayed - I usually am - but nothing that defines a Wikipedia stub has done so at this point. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the article title is necessarily a negative connotation; it can also be about positive Christian practices in this regard. The article lacks any discourse on the biblical tracts or religious teachings regarding domestic violence, whether pro or con. It should be possible to build a valid and interesting article on this topic, but this certainly isn't it (yet).—RJH (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this stub as an POV WP:SOAP. Majoreditor (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously needs some cleanup, but it appears there's been enough research on this topic to establish notability and to make a NPOV article possible. - Headwes (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not cleanupable. In addition to being WP:SOAPBOX it is, oh, where did I put my memory of that technical term .... hmmmmm, .... oh, yes: the technical term for this is WP:BULLSHIT. There, that's it. Nice to put it in its proper slot. Noroton (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article makes any claims that are demonstrably false or unsupported then please correct them. However, that wouldn't be a good reason to delete the article entirely. - Headwes (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the nature of WP:BULLSHIT is that the text doesn't tend to do it in a demonstrable way. The creator has created a little bumpersticker of propaganda which just so happens to meet the letter of Wikipedia rules while violating the spirit of NPOV. It's actually an insidious, ugly piece of bigotry behind a veneer of phony propriety. In each sentence where it appears, try replacing the word "Christianity" with "African Americans". The propagandistic chestnut conflating geographic areas where there are more fundamentalists with higher rates of domestic violence is atrocious. Those same areas have a slew of cultural and economic differences that could also be pointed to. You don't throw around incendiary, accusatory statements equating adherence to a religion with disgusting behavior and stick it in a stub, which by definition doesn't have the depth to handle a sensitive subject. You don't do that because it amounts to plastering religious bigotry on Wikipedia. The creator should clean up his own mess. I notice it was created just in time for Christmas. Thanks for the giftwrapped bullshit, Uncle G. You've certainly succeeded in positioning yourself on the safe side of Wikipedia disciplinary rules. Great example for bigots to follow, including those whose bigotry you won't like. Great way to help Wikipedia. Noroton (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Refactored Noroton (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a very small chance that an article full of bigotry was not written by a bigot. Although the alternative explanations are few (heat of argument, exhaustion, other ways that the mind can malfunction enough to produce something this bad), they do exist, even for people as smart and sophisticated as Uncle G, so I refactored my comment just above to reflect that. Just hours before I first ran across this AfD, I consulted one of Uncle G's essays and was actively considering asking for his advice, so I was doubly shocked to see this atrocity. If through some strange twist of circumstances I found I was the author of something that came out looking so bigoted, I'd fix the problem ASAP and apologize. Noroton (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — it could basically be described as "there has been some minor discussion of this issue without a conclusion". You don't say? This is hopelessly biased by the very principle; it's a classic POV fork from domestic violence. --Haemo (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That it has been discussed by numerous others makes it notable, just as for any other topic. What the article needs is an expansion. I don't know why people want it to reach a conclusion--that would be a clear violation of NPOV. The article is supposed to present the views of others. Noronton, your contribution to this discussion comes very close to a personal attack on another editor. DGG (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect you DGG, but I would ask you look at some of the quotes in the article include: Some people have been shocked to learn (clear weasel words), The relationship between Christianity and domestic violence has been discussed by Christian theologians. (border weasel) and that alone is half the content of the actual article, aside from external links. It would require more cleanup than there is article *if* it is a valid article (ie: more than substantial rewrite). I'm not a Christian (or Muslim) so I don't have a horse in this race, but from an outsider's point of view, it does seem to have serious POV issues. The fact that it has TWELVE references (actually 10 are just "futher reading") and not one is a web link seems rather odd as well, making it particularly difficult to verify. These references are pefectly within the letter of policy here, but not the spirit. From the ground up, it just looks extremely biased. Whether or not the TOPIC is worthy of an article is difficult to determine with all the bias in the article as it is. Since it would require a substantial rewrite to remove that bias, it seems deletion is in order. No one has attempted to clear this POV up during the actual AFD. Pharmboy (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first quoted wording is atrocious. So I fixed it ;p If we all chip in to fix the problems we see with the article, we won't have to delete it. Remember, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Not complain about things and never do anything about it, and then try to erase rather than fix. I think it's been established that this topic has been discussed by multiple articles, and it is notable enough for a wikipedia article. If the current article has problems, let's work on it. There is no reason to delete a topic that meets our guidelines (surely we can simply delete the offending sentences that break our guidelines, but keep the article itself.)-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the sources. "Feminist theologians." That's clearly WP:FRINGE. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DGG Noronton, your contribution to this discussion comes very close to a personal attack on another editor. Any time you forcefully complain of conduct indistinguishable from bigotry, it would tend to look that way, wouldn't it. Offensive actions need strong condemnation or we risk making it look acceptable. And your reaction has just that weakness. Certainly the subject itself could be treated in an acceptable way, but we have no evidence that it ever will be. If the treatment it's already received weren't redolent of bigotry, then keeping it would be a justifiable option (I've favored that option in many AfDs). I would have no objection whatever to someone writing an NPOV article on the topic and resurrecting it. We could have all sorts of articles on subjects that include offensive implications about all sorts of groups (and we do), and and that's fine when they're in the proper context (identified as fringe opinions when that's what they are and countered with a balance of other opinions and not presented in a way that implies Wikipedia finds them particularly deserving of consideration). Good articles on any subject don't promote bigotry. This one does, and we need to protect our reputation from its taint. I suggest you think about whether you've personally done enough in this instance to help distance Wikipedia from bigoted, offensive language within the encyclopedia. In fact, your own contribution to this discussion, DGG, doesn't give any indication that you find bigoted material against a religious group to be wrong, despite the fact that you've looked it over, considered the matter and commented on it. A bigot who reads your comment could think that promoting bigotry in Wikipedia articles is considered tolerable. Keeping cool and discreet and diplomatic is almost always the best course, but there are times when we need to make sure people understand just how offensive this conduct is. Noroton (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont hold with promoting bigotry or anything else in wikipedia; I do hold with describing things objectively, even if the material can be used by bigots. If the article does not meet standards of NPOV , it can be edited to do so. The problem as i see is that it needs expansion to include a fuller range of viewpoints and situations -- the documentation as given seems extensive enough to do so. The relationship between various ethnic, social, religious, and other groupings and structures to violence against women are legitimate subjects. Using charges of NPOV about the present state of an article to urge its deletion rather than its amendment is a direct opposition to our deletion policy. This is especially the case when the main problem can be solved by expansion. DGG (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a particular intersection of two bad things that multiply the harm: Bigotry is worse than typical NPOV for obvious reasons; and to have it isolated in a stub, which is far worse than as part of a larger article. Readers can easily view something given its own Wikipedia page as somehow more authoritative than some paragraphs added to a larger article. Having its own page gives the content a kind of imprimatur, consciously or unconsciously for readers less familiar with Wikipedia than we are. We need to set the bar higher. We should also consider the possibility that someone writing a bigotry-promoting stub may well be satisfied to have the stub stand as it is for weeks or months before someone suppliments it, all the while acting just like a bumper sticker, without the possibility that someone concerned about the bigotry will confront the editor in a parking lot. Nice propaganda vehicle, these stubs. Noroton (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article so poorly organized and written - it has no value. But of course one can make an article on this subject if it is better written and sourced.Biophys (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what it looked like before it was stubbed, but this is a perfectly fine, reasonably NPOV starting place for a very valid topic. To call it fringe becuase it cites feminist theologians (who certainly aren't the only ones talking about it) is a discredit to the encyclopedia. Pastordavid (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy Martin Luther King Day, pastor! Whether or not you're actually a pastor, imagine the worst thing said about your denomination (that can be footnoted). Now imagine stubs going up on Wikipedia to promote it. No, really: take a little time imagining it. Not that the divisiveness when it comes to religion has ever produced any harm ... Noroton (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Happy MLK day to you as well. Yes, I am a pastor; and if something negative can be said about my denomination that is reliably sourced and verifiable, then I would argue that it has a place on wikipedia. Example: See the article on Martin Luther, the section on the relationship between Luther and antisemitism. Not something we put on bumperstickers for our church - but true nonetheless. There is significant scholarly work (which is the difference between this and some of your examples below) being done between the relationship between Christianity and the condition of women in Christian society. Some of it paints a very negative picture, some of it seems the relationship as more benign, and some is positive, pointing to the role that the church has played (at various points in history) in empowering women who are in abusive relationships. This is not a kernal of research, without going farther than the bookshelf right next to my desk I can pull off a book from a major academic publisher with essays by noted scholars on the topic (e.g., Brita Gill-Austern, "Love Understood as Self-sacrifice and Self-denial:What does it do to women?", in Through the Eyes of Women, ed. Jeanne Stevenson Moesnner (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996). The fact that it paints our faith in a negative light does not mean that we should oppose talking about it in the public square -- perhaps it means we need to reevaluate our behavior and assumptions as a church. Pastordavid (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No one, certainly not me, is saying negative information on anything should be glossed over or removed from the encyclopedia (and I've said it earlier in this discussion). I'm talking about stubs which simultaneously present a religious group as a whole in a bad light, in a way that disgusts and which doesn't present context. The example of Luther is not quite the same as an attack on the living and a broad-brush attack associated with bigotry. I've inserted information on scandals into the article on the Roman Catholic diocese I belong to, information on historic anti-Semitism on the town I live in and Ku Klux Klan activity in the history of my town and nearby towns. But always, always in context, because we owe that to both the reader and people connected with the subject. I even added a few paragraphs about the Klan into the article on my county, but I was rightly overruled by other editors because, since the paragraphs were the only information on the history of the county, they gave too much prominence to the topic. There's a way to approach inflammatory information, and this isn't it. If this had been turned into an NPOV article, I wouldn't object to its existence. Noroton (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Proposed stubs, each of which could be (and, I'm sure, already is) a kernel of a well-researched, NPOV Wikipedia article that I would have no trouble wanting to keep, and yet is nevertheless, until expanded, a bumpersticker promoting hate:

The relationship between the Negroid race and low intelligence has been discussed by scientists. White scientists such as .... and others have raised the question of a close connection between Negroid genes and low mental functioning. [1] Some people have been shocked to learn that the levels of intelligence are as low in the brains of African-descended people than they are in people of other races. [2] Several studies have found that Black intelligence levels are lower than White and Asian intelligence levels. [3] This Race-baiting-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it!

The relationship between Judaism and greed has been discussed by anthropologists, cultural critics, politicians, business people, Christians and others. Prominent historical figures such as Adolph Hitler, Henry Ford, ...

The relationship between women and low mathematical ability has been discussed by scientists, Harvard presidents and others ...

The relationship between Catholic priests/Islamic cultures/Insert-Whatever-Group-You-Can-Find-A-Source-For-Here and pederasty has been discussed ...

The relationship between [any group for which an organized bigotry exists that can provide source material] and [name the derogatory condition that the bigots have used] can be broadcast with a Wikipedia stub by anyone familiar enough with the fringe literature.

This doesn't build up Wikipedia, it tears it down while hurting other people — which is the sole effect of the stub until someone other than the creator is forced to defend the mainstream, humane, reliably sourced consensus by adding to the article. And of course the members of the group being torn down, who often know more about the topic than anyone, are the ones slapped in the face by the stub. So we simultaneously hurt them, burden them by forcing them to defend themselves against bigotry, give them reason to find Wikipedia a distasteful forum to participate in and disgust other decent readers — or worse, make it seem like footnoted bigotry delivered in a calm manner is just another valid point of view. Someone reading the English Wikipedia from India or Singapore or the Upper West Side of Manhattan may not be as familiar with fundamentalist Christianity that they can detect the bigotry.

The answer is to remove stubs that are obviously offensive and wait for someone to put together an article, or even a stub, that treats the subject fairly enough not to promote a hateful fringe view. It really is not too much to ask of anyone. The alternative is to allow any editor to create a bumpersticker for a sourceable, hate-filled opinion and allow the online bumpersticker to stay up until someone else works to fill it out with fair treatment. We already have wars on Wikipedia between various Eastern European groups of editors and between Israeli and Arab editors. Name your ethnic/religious/other conflict and there's an English-speaker with Internet access and a book to source: Among the Hindu nationalists, Sri Lankan factions, African tribes and many other groups there are bigots who could have a lot of fun with stubs. Don't tolerate bigoted treatment on Wikipedia. Noroton (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for the band, delete for the albums. east.718 at 01:40, January 21, 2008

Unplugged(album)[edit]

Okay, I tried to CSD this as an "unnotable album", but then someone went on and said "I have to decline it since unnotable album is not covered by CSD". I also nominate all the other albums and stuff related to Sudden Death (music), the editor appears to have a COI, and thus this could be considered spam. Also, would being on the Dr. Demento Show make you notable enough for Wikipedia?

Related nominations:

Sudden Death (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dead Things Can Rap Too(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Noise Pollution(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brain Damage(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brain Dead(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Decade of Decay(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fatal Accident Zone(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Die Laughing(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'll put the AFD tags on them in a sec, ok? ViperSnake151 20:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being played on Dr. Demento a few times doesn't grant immediate WP:N status. Doc Strange (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on Sudden Death (music), Delete or merge into Sudden Death (music) article for all the others. (Full disclosure -- I had placed a prod on Brain Damage(album) before the AfD). Sudden Death has a song in Dr. D's top 100 all time list, but I don't have a gut feeling for whether that confers notability or not. Lots of ghits for Sudden Death + Dr.Demento -- if someone wanted to take the time to plow through them, notability might (or might not) turn up. The individual albums, however, aren't coming up with much notability. I can't find professional reviews or quality ghits, so they seem to fail WP:MUSIC. If the group's article is kept, merge these into a discography section, otherwise delete 'em all.--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band article, Merge the albums into this. I tagged one of the album articles for speedy deletion when it was created and realised then there were problems so removed it again. A quick check now shows that three of the albums are available to buy on cduniverse.com so a suggestion of notability. Apart from anything else, the articles about the albums are without context as they are. Ros0709 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete for the band, Strong Delete for the albums. The group doesn't satisfy notability IMO, but the albums just don't satisfy notability. --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakaway (magazine)[edit]

religious magazine, with no sources or any hint of notability Jac16888 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources = no notability. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually get this magazine, but I can't say its very notable. Its readership is fairly small, and overall there just isn't much to say about it. Danski14^(talk) 00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, magazine put out by a major organization. Everyking (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lizel Moore[edit]

Athlete, only achievment was to come 30th in an olympic event. Contested prod Jac16888 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:N and WP:BLP, no sources = no notability = delete. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources have been added, now meets WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:BLP. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO. Athlete who competed at the highest level (source added). • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Olympian = notable. Corvus cornix_talk —Preceding comment was added at 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I guess being in the Olpmpics does make one eligible. --Revanche (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Repeater stations are generally not considered notable on their own, as the consensus below demonstrates. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K52EG[edit]

Low power local ~~radio~~ television station, which displays no notability, has no useful sources. Prod contested without explanation Jac16888 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: K52EG is a television station. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thats what i meant to put, i was looking at a radio station article before this one--Jac16888 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Keep - Guidelines are under consideration at Wikipedia:Notability (media) that relaxes certain notability standards for media. This essay points out the special circumstances surrounding media notability, especially the competition in media that prevents a television station from being covered on the radio, on other TV stations, in the newspaper, or online. I expect that this station would be covered. The station is not without sources, as the information in the article is contained in the FCC's CDBS database, which is referenced in the article. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the information in the article, apart from the infobox, comes from the source given, which would appear to be a very generic, not to mention technical, source, available for all stations. Nothing in the article or the sources, such as they are, show anyway in which this article is notable--Jac16888 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. All of the information in the article can be tied to source documentation stored in the FCC database. The link given is the gateway to that information. However, I can provide direct links to the source documentation point-by-point, and will do so before the comment period for this AfD is finished. This is another reason to oppose the nom; the article can be improved. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The FCC record link has all the technical information regarding this article, to show its existence. However, no sources are given regarding Better Life's ownership prior to June 1998. I'd vote to oppose the deletion, or, at the very least, redirect to 3ABN's article. -- azumanga (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteIt apears to exist, per the FCC website, but that only satisfies verifiability requirements. More is needed to satisfy notability. Not every mast or tv/radio repeater or community low-power broadcaster is automatically notable. It only transmits to only a small area per the coverage map [8]. No evidence that the low power transmitter broadcasts locally originated programming. No news coverage whatever found at Google news [9], which is troubling. Edison (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why new guidelines have been suggested: sources that establish notability don't generally cover other media, unless they do something really drastic. In addition, when you think about it, it isn't a television station's job to make news. Admittedly, this station is a little more challenging in that it's a satellite-driven, likely automated, station with no locally-produced content, but these stations would be covered by WP:Notability (media). dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes it exists, but there is no other sources found for WP:N, which requires the sourcing, and it's sourcing guidelines trumps notabilty subpages. Secret ^account 01:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to 3ABN. LPTVs which do not originate programming should be presumed NN in the lack of meaningful history. 121a0012 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Hill[edit]

Author whose only claim to fame is that one of his books was reviewed by the chicago tribune Jac16888 (talk)

Delete per WP:BLP due to a lack of sources. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says it is based on info from Hill himself and from what is apparently his website. Needs more second/third party sources. No prejudice against future re-creation if his future books gain good reviews and he gets substantial coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO.I could find no sources to add to the present article. Edison (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison's friendly and logical reasoning. --Lockley (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 01:43, January 21, 2008

Hyper REVolution 230[edit]

This article cites no sources; there are no signs that this product even existed or that the supposed creator of this device is a real person. Coreycubed (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N due to lack of sources. Also possible WP:HOAX according to my Gsearch, which got nothing but a WP mirror and an unrelated hit. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of male mixed martial artists[edit]

Since source for every single entry (Sherdog.com), not sure if that source meets wp:rs, making wp:v a problem since they cant be found elsewhere. Seems a bit indescriminate and even having to add the word "notable" in the first sentence. Pharmboy (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The vast majority of entries on the list link to other articles that establish notability for the names on the list, only the red links are sourced. Secondly, the single source is Sherdog, which is the most reliable database of MMA fighters online and offline. But whether notability is established for the majority of them is not the issue, if there are any unnotable names on the list, it can be edited out and cleaned up--no case of deletion has been made, just a case for cleanup. Also, nearly every list of people on WP has the word "notable" in the intro, that's not much of an incriminating remark. hateless 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just checked a few that have articles here, per your suggestion. What I found in a quick check was that for most of them, the only sources given were links to their own webpages, and sherdog.com. My main concern is that sherdog.com seems to be the ONLY source, which seems counter to wp:n , which states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I am not doubting that the persons in the list are who they are, and that they are good at what they do, etc. The problem is there is only ONE source for so many articles. (note the policies says 'sources', plural) In a perfect world, someone could go an find some additional sources for all the pages that have just sherdog.com listed and the point would be moot, as would the AFD. Pharmboy (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're making an argument for cleanup and for the introduction of more sources, not for the wholesale deletion of the entire list. hateless 07:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - do your homework first, this information can be verified in multiple other places, it's just that Sherdog has the most authoritative database of professional matches, much like BoxRec is the one-stop shop for boxing. The criteria for inclusion are also not arbitrary - WP:BIO defines notability for sportspersons as having competed in a professional circuit or the highest amateur levels of the sport. east.718 at 21:27, January 15, 2008
Strong keep - per East718 & Hateless. Gromlakh (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Construct additional pylons[edit]

This is a reference to a fad that has been deleted multiple times and protected from recreation. As such it is non-notable. JuJube (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO and possible speedy if it is a recreation of previously deleted material, which I can't see as Im not an admin. Pharmboy (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks sources, so currently fails WP:N. I highly doubt that reliable sources can be found either, so probably fails WP:V as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I dont think "a phrase commonly used in [snip] random animations" qualifies as encyclopedic. (What is a "Youtube Poop" ?) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A video put together from random clips in random order with random effects applied (often repeating the same clip up to ten times). I admit to finding some of them funny, but there's nothing encyclopedic about it. JuJube (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep--JForget 00:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Wolenczak[edit]

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered within the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, I call into question why articles such as Jean-Luc Picard, Randy Marsh, Niles Crane, Dr. Who, and other fictional character articles are allowed to exist, yet, you're targeting this one. Explain. Kyle C Haight (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WAX. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator seems to try to illustrate a point. Nominator hasn't even suggested the possibility of adressing the issue through discussion but started page blanking and redirecting and now an AfD after meeting opposition. The subject is NOT discussed is the main article. There are rooms for improvements, by making a List of seaQuest DSV characters which in my eyes has enough notability. It should go to the main article but that would make the article too big, therefor a separate article could be created. I'm opposed to this AfD but advocate efforts to merge single character articles into a List as I do agree that a single character from the show does not meet notability criteria. However, as pointed out, I see room for improvement.--Fogeltje (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -What matters is an assertion of notability through referencing, not a "feeling" something has notability. If you can promise you can demonstrate notability with a little time, that's one thing, but to keep for some indefinite possibility that there are references? No. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere am I saying it should be kept indefinitely. In itself this article has no notability but should be merged into a new article with a List of characters. But that is not a matter for AfD but for merging. I feel that nominator is violating WP:POINT. He has attempted nothing to solve the issue, simply mass blanks and redirects and resorts to AfD when he doesn't get things done his way. My keep vote is not indefinite keeping of this article, but to provide some time to figure out what to do with the article, which would be in my eyes, creating a List of characters and merge shortened bios there (adding the list to the article o the show, which is notable, wouldn't work because that article would be blown out of proportion, therefore a separate List of seaQuest DSV characters is justified).--Fogeltje (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks out-of-universe info to pass WP:FICT and lacks sources to pass WP:N. I'm not opposed to merging a small amount of this content into the main article for the show, but most of it looks pretty much like plot summary. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Changing vote based on improvements. This is the problem with bios of fictional people. Once the show is no longer seen in reruns (as is the case with SeaQuest DSV), someone says "no real-world notability". Jimmy Neutron, popular now, but after his show is replaced on Nick, he will be as forgotten as "Twister" and the other kids on, say, "Rocket Power". In truth, most characters aren't notable. I enjoyed watching SeaQuest in the 90s, both on NBC and later on SciFi, and I don't recall that much backstory on his character (or Captain Bridger, also up for nomination). Born in 2002? I'll buy that, the show was set in 2018, he was a teenager. Was there an episode about his birthday? I don't recall that one. Things like this are covered by (and speculated upon by) internet sites that serve the fandom of this series. An article about the television show can have a section on Lucas Wolenczak, albeit not one with the intimate level of detail here. Mandsford (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a well written and detailed article. Adding it to the main seaQuest article would either make it to long or cut to much info. This guy is a little merge crazy. (Dr. Stantz (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If I added in some background information on the character from a "real-world" perspective (as I've done with the Bridger and Westphalen articles), would that be satisfactory? Kyle C Haight (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets no current criterion for deletion. WP:FICTION lacks consensus. Major characters in notable work have notability and can be sourced from the work itself. DGG (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Real-world background information has been added. The original complaint no longer has validity. Kyle C Haight (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid it will still not satisfy WP:N and ever will. Short character bios can be placed into a List of seaQuest DSV characters in my eyes. This would have to be placed within the article of the show, which is notable. However, that article would become unnecessarily long so a separate list can be justified. However, nominator hasn't even attempted anything like this and is simply blanking and redirecting and then taking it to AfD when he fails. My vote is not a vote to keep it indefinitely but to keep it around for a while so we can properly discuss on how to keep the information and possibly merge it into something different.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kyle definitely needs to add sourcing, but I'll buy his argument that the character was (a) adored by teenage girls (b) despised by sci-fi fans for the same reason as child prodigy Wesley Crusher had been. I had no idea that Jonathan Brandis committed suicide (hanged himself) in 2003, and though that information hasn't yet been put in the background, that itself indicates that there is even more to be added besides what Mr. Haight has put in so far. I encourage everyone to look at the article again (the Background section is what's added). It was enough to make me go from "delete" to "keep". This is a step in the right direction. Mandsford (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently important recurring character in the series. sourcing can and should be added, per Mandsford. DGG (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eusebeus. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebeus actually wants the page deleted, did you mean to say Delete? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2008 (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 Lucas Wolenczak in multiple reliable sources cited in Lucas_Wolenczak#References clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. Moreover, Lucas_Wolenczak#Background provides extensive evidence of Lucas Wolenczak's real-world notability. 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 00:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merge - Yes. Delete - No. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus --JForget 00:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Westphalen[edit]

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered within the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, I call into question why articles such as Jean-Luc Picard, Randy Marsh, Niles Crane, Dr. Who, and other fictional character articles are allowed to exist, yet, you're targeting this one. Explain. Kyle C Haight (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WAX. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator seems to try to illustrate a point. Nominator hasn't even suggested the possibility of adressing the issue through discussion but started page blanking and redirecting and now an AfD after meeting opposition. The subject is NOT discussed is the main article. There are rooms for improvements, by making a List of seaQuest DSV characters which in my eyes has enough notability. It should go to the main article but that would make the article too big, therefor a separate article could be created. I'm opposed to this AfD but advocate efforts to merge single character articles into a List as I do agree that a single character from the show does not meet notability criteria. However, as pointed out, I see room for improvement. --Fogeltje (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. No opposition to merging into main article or list of characters. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging would be my plan, which is what nominator should have attempted or suggested. If articles get deleted, merging becomes much more difficult as the articles are well written, but need shortening to be incorporated into a new list.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were references, they were put in incorrectly, I fixed them. (Dr. Stantz (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:FICT. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator uses flawed reasoning in violation of WP:POINT in my eyes and WP:FICT has no consensus and disputed.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Real-world background information has been added. The original complaint no longer has validity. Kyle C Haight (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid it will still not satisfy WP:N and ever will. Short character bios can be placed into a List of seaQuest DSV characters in my eyes. This would have to be placed within the article of the show, which is notable. However, that article would become unnecessarily long so a separate list can be justified. However, nominator hasn't even attempted anything like this and is simply blanking and redirecting and then taking it to AfD when he fails. My vote is not a vote to keep it indefinitely but to keep it around for a while so we can properly discuss on how to keep the information and possibly merge it into something different.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be redirected and merged to a more appropriate article, not deleted. Catchpole (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and don't merge mergeing would unbalance the main article.Genisock2 (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless sources can added to address lack of real world context and notability. Ridernyc (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merge - Yes. Delete - No. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 04:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus --JForget 01:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Smith[edit]

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered within the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, I call into question why articles such as Jean-Luc Picard, Randy Marsh, Niles Crane, Dr. Who, and other fictional character articles are allowed to exist, yet, you're targeting this one. Explain. Kyle C Haight (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator seems to try to illustrate a point. Nominator hasn't even suggested the possibility of adressing the issue through discussion but started page blanking and redirecting and now an AfD after meeting opposition. The subject is NOT discussed is the main article. There are rooms for improvements, by making a List of seaQuest DSV characters which in my eyes has enough notability. It should go to the main article but that would make the article too big, therefor a separate article could be created. I'm opposed to this AfD but advocate efforts to merge single character articles into a List as I do agree that a single character from the show does not meet notability criteria. However, as pointed out, I see room for improvement. --Fogeltje (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a well written and detailed article. Adding it to the main seaQuest article would either make it to long or cut to much info. This guy is a little merge crazy. (Dr. Stantz (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
'Delete no real-world significance asserted. Eusebeus (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well written, maybe, but there are no secondary sources listed per WP:WAF. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No comment. --Revanche (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article should be redirected to a more appropriate article, not deleted. Catchpole (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be added to add real world context and notability. Ridernyc (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merge - Yes. Delete - No. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 04:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references for this article are other wikipedia pages with no references.Asher196 (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references are for the episodes themselves, I linked them to the pages that dealt with the article. Dr. Stantz (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus --JForget 01:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Bridger[edit]

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered within the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, I call into question why articles such as Jean-Luc Picard, Randy Marsh, Niles Crane, Dr. Who, and other fictional character articles are allowed to exist, yet, you're targeting this one. Explain. Kyle C Haight (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator seems to try to illustrate a point. Nominator hasn't even suggested the possibility of adressing the issue through discussion but started page blanking and redirecting and now an AfD after meeting opposition. The subject is NOT discussed is the main article. There are rooms for improvements, by making a List of seaQuest DSV characters which in my eyes has enough notability. It should go to the main article but that would make the article too big, therefor a separate article could be created. I'm opposed to this AfD but advocate efforts to merge single character articles into a List as I do agree that a single character from the show does not meet notability criteria. However, as pointed out, I see room for improvement. --Fogeltje (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Changing vote. This is the problem with bios of fictional people. Once the show is no longer seen in reruns (as is the case with SeaQuest DSV), someone says "no real-world notability". Jimmy Neutron, popular now, but after his show is replaced on Nick, he will be as forgotten as "Twister" and the other kids on, say, "Rocket Power". In truth, most characters aren't notable. I enjoyed watching SeaQuest in the 90s, both on NBC and later on SciFi. And I liked Roy Scheider's portrayal of Bridger, kind of an update of his nice administrator working with sea mammals role, except in a sub rather than on Amity Island. But things like this are covered by (and speculated upon by) internet sites that serve the fandom of this series. An article about the television show (or about Roy Scheider) can have a section on Captain Bridger, albeit not one with the intimate level of detail here. Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a well written and detailed article. Adding it to the main seaQuest article would either make it to long or cut to much info. (Dr. Stantz (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - no real world significance adduced. Eusebeus (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Real-world background information has been added. The original complaint no longer has validity. Kyle C Haight (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid it will still not satisfy WP:N and ever will. Short character bios can be placed into a List of seaQuest DSV characters in my eyes. This would have to be placed within the article of the show, which is notable. However, that article would become unnecessarily long so a separate list can be justified. However, nominator hasn't even attempted anything like this and is simply blanking and redirecting and then taking it to AfD when he fails. My vote is not a vote to keep it indefinitely but to keep it around for a while so we can properly discuss on how to keep the information and possibly merge it into something different.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep OK Kyle, you've gotten me to change my vote, based on the additions about Roy Scheider's departure and the effect on the series when the lead character had to be replaced). It's a step in the right direction (look for more sources). Most of these character bios are of the "I-watch-a-lot-of-TV" variety, and it's clear that you're taking positive action to make this a keeper. I encourage everyone to look at the addition (section labelled "Background") and see what they think. To always keep all such articles or to always delete all such articles is not good policy, and I think these have to be judged on their merits. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You still need to provide a source for that, but I don't think that should be hard, I heard about this also. Provide a good reference for it and I see less problems with this article. Perhaps a general clean-up but certainly no AfD.--Fogeltje (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, hopefully I have satisfied all sides of the issue by updating the article to read from a more "real-world" type perspective as well as adding in more references. Further updates to come on the other applicable articles, or, if anyone else could contribute to their betterment, please feel free. Kyle C Haight (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merge - Yes. Delete - No. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 01:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SeaQuest DSV 4600[edit]

This is a fictional ship that does not have real world information to establish notability. It doesn't require extended coverage, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why, then, are articles such as USS Defiant, USS Voyager, USS Enterprise-C, et all. allowed to remain? They are all fictional ships. Explain. Kyle C Haight (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNo need for AfD, suggestion to merge relevant into the main article has already been made which should sufficiently deal with the matter. Seems to me that nominator is trying to prove a point. --Fogeltje (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no existing out-of universe data. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Revanche (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Craft is a central plot device & "stared" (?!) in every show. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP TTN is only nominating it for deletion because his unilateral attempt to redirect (without merging I might add) to main article failed. Dr. Stantz (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as people seem willing to take this on and improve it. It's got reliable()ish) sources, and doesn't seem to have been created in bad faith. User:Zeibura - this is your task from henceforth. The cabal has spoken! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOLCat Bible Translation Project[edit]

User:Deb speedily deleted this as a website not asserting significance. I asked for it to be restored as I don't believe it was a valid speedy given the news coverage. I do think it needs this AfD though, because the news coverage may just make it fail WP:NOT#NEWS. I'm kind of neutral on this one, but would like to hear what others think about it. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into lolcat, is NN as stand-alone. I can't believe this has credible citations. It boggles the mind. Wow. Doc Strange (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wouldn't object to a merger into the lolcat article, as long as this isn't given undue weight in that.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise this had been speedied, as if... "Spinoffs of geekish stuff" it may be, this has coverage and therefore is notable somewhere or other, but if the fact that it has an article of its own really hurts peoples' heads that much, go ahead and merge into lolcat, choices between merging and splitting have long since not bothered me and the title redirecting to the lolcat article is logical, so I'm neutral on this. I did think there may be more sources out there than those 3 I managed to find initially but I can't seem to find any. Maybe in a few months time, but obviously WP:CRYSTAL, so if more sources can be found great, if not then merge at will until it achieves similar notability to, say, LOLCODE. So basically, keep or merge, whatever, but don't just delete it. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, it does site sources, and further, the news story was slashdotted. I believe this satisfies WP:WEB. I'd love to vote merge, but I can't find a policy/guideline to justify it. -Verdatum (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge If its significance can be determined, I think it should be kept (per Verdatum). If not, I think it should be merged with lolcat, per Doc Strange.
- Sorry, forgot to sign that. Trvsdrlng (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into lolcat, as a single sentence. NN on its own. Fin ©™ 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Okay, here's an idea. There've been a few discussions on Talk:Lolcat about the fact that "lolrus" redirects to "lolcat" even though there's nothing about the lolrus in that article. That, and this AfD, have given me this idea: Add a section to the lolcat article titled "Spinoffs" or "Influences", or something in that vein, with three subheadings: one for lolcatbible containing this content, one for lolrus and one with a brief overview of LOLCODE with a see also link, and with "lolrus" and this redirecting to their sub-sections. I'd be happy to have a go at writing this, if the result of this AfD isn't delete (which it doesn't look like it will be). - Zeibura ^(Talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:N#TEMP. Nothing else forthcoming. KrakatoaKatie 06:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Greece earthquake[edit]

No damages, nobody injured, one paragraph which doesn't say much. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Corvus cornix_talk 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entry may be ok as a single line in something like Earthquakes in Greece but not exactly notable by itself. Pharmboy (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources to demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see plenty of sources to prove it *happened*, but what exactly makes it notable? I don't think every earthquake is automatically notable, as earthquakes are pretty common. Pharmboy (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage to any significant degree (a few separate articles from separate news sources dealing with the subject in a non-trivial fashion) always indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the solution to "one paragraph which doesn't say much" is expanding it. And carnage is not what makes an article notable, but this thing. --Babedacus (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think Wikipedia should serve as a general guardian of human knowledge for future generations to explore. This makes every event notable, as long as it is a recorded event of human history. --Enkivos (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But wikipedia as policies, including WP:NOT#NEWS Delete Secret ^account 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A news story by itself does not merit an article, but the fact that it was a news story does not detract from its established notability. --Babedacus (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because it's covered in the news for a day, doesn't mean that it deserves an article, WP:N looks for lasting notabilty, not just one event briefly covered in the news and quickly to be forgotten. Wikinews exists for that very reason, to cover the news. Thanks Secret ^account 03:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete I don't think we'll get more content, and it doesn't seem to have had any effect that will be particularly remembered in a year's time. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This earthquake did not caused significant effects, not even damage, injuries or fatalities.--JForget 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Damage, injuries, and fatalities are not criteria for inclusion, while notability is. --Babedacus (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This an area prone to frequent seismic activity including numerous earthquakes, but this particular one doesn't seem to be notable enough. --JForget 16:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Not#NEWS. GreenGourd (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is precisely the sort of article contemplated in WP:Not#NEWS and WP:N#TEMP. A short burst of news reports is not evidence of long term notability.--Kubigula (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Real Estate Equities Company[edit]

Unclear notability: the only claim seems to be that they own "several landmark buildings," the meaning of which isn't clear. No references. delldot talk 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability shown. If the landmark buildings are really notable, I might change my mind, but as of now, it fails WP:CORP. Corvus cornix_talk 18:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. Fountain Place [10] and Bank One Center, now Comerica Bank Tower [11] are among the best-known and most prominent buildings of the Dallas skyline. I'm familiar with other buildings listed in Austin and Fort Worth as well. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until sources are shown to meet WP:CORP Secret ^account 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Summer Olympics Medals Earned Per Capita[edit]

Delete for all the same reasons previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita. Strictly speaking, this is not a WP:CSD#G4 situation as this current nomination is for the 2004 and 2006 Games, whereas the previously deleted articles were for 1996 and 2000. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the "Medals per capita" issue has been discussed before in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita and there was a consensus to delete such articles. So bit it. In reading the discussion by those in favor of deletion it was surprising to me to read such dismissive comments about the reasons why people might find the "medals per capita" approach informative and useful. The standard "Medals Per Country" is informative but certainly an imperfect reflection of a given country's athletic prowess. "Medals per capita per country" is also imperfect but it does provide additional insights beyond the "medals per country" approach. In my own experience outside of wiki I have seen many people informally struggle to determine the "medals per capita" to help their understanding of Olympic results so I took the time to put together this table. It saddens me that the wiki community would not find this information helpful — Sybcollector 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not that it isn't "informative" and/or "helpful"; the problem is that the article fails one of Wikipedia's core policies, namely Wikipedia:No original research. Your calculations are a synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the precedence nominations as well as policy. Punkmorten (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But only for reasons of stare decisis. GreenGourd (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Pastordavid (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small Miracles[edit]

Does not appear to be a set of notable books. Both authors are redlinks,and page contains very little context. (If this is deleted, maybe the album of the same name by Blue Rodeo could be moved to this page?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sorry, looks pretty notable to me, as verified here [12] at Google News. However, article does need to be expanded. Shoessss | Chat 18:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a whole lot of work to bring in some references, but the Google News search turns up goodly numbers of good hits; the New York Times had the first book on its Bestseller list at least here, which seems to bring some notability along. I might suggest the article be rewritten about the first book itself, and then include the others as a second mention. Something along those lines, but either way, keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still Pending[edit]

Speedy Delete and Salt. Vanity, NN, fails WP:BAND, re-created deleted article. All independent sources are from local Portland newspapers. Band is also unsigned... this makes them a local band whose notability is that its members are kids. EndlessDan 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 and salt per nom. Tagged for A7; doesn't assert notability in any way. Note to deleting admin: Please see that the pics are deleted too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, didn't catch those sources on the first scan through! This is why we dont' edit when half asleep. Anyway, some of the sources look okay, but beyond that I'm not totally sold on the notability here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sorry for changing my !vote twice, but on closer examination, there do seem to be enough reliable sources for this band to pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just googled up (without checking article refs) and found a few interesting links: found reviews at http://www.lakeoswegoreview.com/features/story.php?story_id=117875149166012100 (local paper) plus http://www.boysoloist.com/artist.asp?vid=2431 and http://www.purevolume.com/stillpendingor. One is a local, but in combination with the others, seems to establish enough credibility to be notable. Pharmboy (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another local article. I would disqualify PureVolume because any musician or band can create free bio and place it on the site. And boysoloist.com appears to be the same deal. Those sites are as credible as a MySpace page. Band does not pass any criteria for musicians and ensembles per WP:band.--EndlessDan 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was nominated two other times for deletion. The first time was a speedy and it was overturned. The second was an AFD and it was ruled as a Keep. There is clear notability in this article, it has clear references and has passed the notability criteria in the past. Stampsations (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above and beyond the clear consensus of Keep established at the previous AfD for the recreated article, the article as it stands provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure if a salt is necessary but I wouldn't object to it as the article has been recreated. As for the previous nominations, they are not a test to be "passed" and the fact that the article was not deleted previously only means there was not sufficient consensus at the time. It is for that reason that articles can be renominated in the first place. As for the speedy deletion being overturned, that means absolutely nothing. If you look at the criteria for speedy deletion, you will see that they are very strict, and that MOST articles that could qualify for deletion should not be speedily deleted. In fact, the only things speedy deletions come into play for is when an article doesn't even claim notability. Claiming notability at all, without a source, and regardless of the legitimacy of the claim, is supposed to negate speedy. One self published CD and an appearance in a children's theater production does not equate to notability.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the article has not been recreated. It was reinstated after an improper speedy deletion - you stated yourself that the speedy was overturned - this does not constitute a re-creation. The second AfD decision was Keep, which means that there was sufficient concensus to retain the article as opposed to insufficient concensus to delete it, as you stated (I guess it's a cup half-full vs. half-empty perspective). Since the article passed the notability criteria in the past and there has been significant additional notability added since that time, there should be no reason to re-nominate it for deletion. Your statement about "one self-published CD and an appearance in a children's theater production" really has nothing to do with the band's notability. Industry sponsorships (Sabian, Mapex, Ampeg), NAMM spokesmanship, national TV appearances and production of a CD single by Grammy-winning producers Tim James (musician) and Antonina Armato does seem to indicate that the band is, in fact, notable. Please note that user Ten Pound Hammer, who actually made this 3rd nomination for AfD has now changed his position to Weak Keep, which, to me indicates that this article should never have been nominated for AfD to begin with. Stampsations (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this AfD. And I still cannot find where this band passes WP:BAND, per Criteria for musicians and ensembles or Albums and songs.--EndlessDan 13:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The band's exposure in national and significant regional media outlets lends credibility under general notability guidelines. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Pastordavid (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Zelmanov[edit]

Nonnotable physicist. The article's purpose appears to be to prop up the fringe science journal Progress in Physics. TheMile (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sorry, the gentlemen is extremely notable in his field ,as verified here [13] at Google Scholar.Shoessss | Chat 18:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Your link supports my point - most of those papers are from Progress in Physics (at ptep-online.com). -TheMile (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You are right, 10 of the 13 are part of the Progress in Physics library. However, there are three other sources listed. In addition, I noticed quite a few additional sources in Google general search criteria. But no, I did not go through the whole list and verify. I admit I am an inclutionist, yes a made-up word, but one of the areas that I believe we should give a little leeway is for the time period between the late 1930’s through the middle 1950’s when a number of people made very large notable contributions to the area of physics, but where either forbidden to discuss or where completely over shadowed by the Einstein’s of the time. Thanks for listening. Shoessss | Chat 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 6 of the papers listed are from Doklady AN USSR,. the Russian equivalent to PNAS.DGG (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I looked at Web of Science, which has 9 articles, from Doklady & another good Russian journal. . The most cited one of them, considerably to my surprise, had 81 citations. mostly from Russian journals, but including Phys Rev. I think he just might be marginally notable. DGG (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. Doklady AN USSR are hardly an equivalent to PNAS. The citation index is pretty low, but he published in mostly Russian journals and long time ago, so having such citation is actually good.Biophys (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Ryman[edit]

This article is a biography that, while sourced, does not meet the criteria for inclusion of a biographical aritcle. All I can find are listings for gallery showings; there simply is not sufficient 3rd party coverage to support a biographical article. Isotope23 ^talk 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep A couple of thousand ghits indicate he has displayed his art a fair amount. He isn't just doing this at home and making lawn art, so seems to pass notability. Never heard of him before, but found a great deal of info pretty quick online. The article is sourced, it can be verified, his work has been displayed and talked about. Pharmboy (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He has shown at PS1 and Saatchi Gallery and has been reviewed in Art in America. Not a lot, but enough to satisfy notability. freshacconcispeaktome 21:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saatchi & Marlborough refs demonstrate notability. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Emerging, rather than fully established artist, but solo show reviewed in the New York Times, group shows at PS 1 and Saatchi Gallery should be enough to satisy notability requirements.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis article seems in line with other contemporary artist posts, i.e. Elizabeth Neel and Will Cotton. Saatchi and P.S.1 legitimize the article along with NYTimes writings on shows.24.239.175.125 (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revanche (talk • contribs) 00:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to The Summer of George--JForget 01:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summer of George[edit]

Delete. This exists. Any notable bullet points from this article were moved. EndlessDan 17:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Delete per EndlessDan. Shoessss | Chat 17:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Duplication. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Summer of George because this topic is not notable, however the article about the episode itself is notable. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original author. I'm fine with incorporating the highlights into the main article, that being the actual episode.--Lindsay (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 01:44, January 21, 2008

Alice Barré[edit]

As it stands, while this individual appears talented there is no assertion of encyclopedic notability beyond that achieved by a number of music students (although it is possible that the individual may well be notable in the future); one of a number of articles created by User:Florian Gommel which could well be either vanity articles or articles about friends. Prod notice was removed by an IP user. Robotforaday (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Just not there. No references found other than Wikipedia. Shoessss | Chat 17:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity bio. Appears to be a c.v. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Afd notice was removed by Special:Contributions/194.29.97.144, who also removed another afd notice (from Danny Casteleyn. Have put a warning on the talk page for the IP address. Robotforaday (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP There were several nontrivial mentions of the subject in secondary sources. Non-admin close. Xymmax (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Chitgopekar[edit]

my understanding is that game show contestants are not considered notable for inclusion in WP. pageant contestant is essentially the same thing. Anastrophe (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is not only a contestant, she was a runner-up of "Miss Earth 2007" pageant. The pageant show was a widely televised event and that itself should assert her notability. Arman ^(Talk) 07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously. --NAHID 10:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: i'm not clear what is 'obvious' about it. by my reading of WP:Notability (People), she doesn't qualify as notable: "Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-Athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, Poker, Bridge, Chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc.". Anastrophe (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: As Miss Earth is a global pageant this can easily be classified as one of "the most prestigious events". Had it been a national or regional pageant, there could be a debate. Arman ^(Talk) 07:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That what I was trying to convey. --NAHID 16:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A number of verifiable, reliable and credible source found here [14] at Google News. Shoessss | Chat 17:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep – press coverage with 'best of 2004' award = notability. KrakatoaKatie 07:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 7280[edit]

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. This article provides no verifiable claim of notability. Too few substantial, reliable references exist to produce an article that itself is not a review or advert. Mikeblas (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator's arguments. If several references with substantial coverage of the product in reliable and indepednent sources are found and added with inline cites by the end of the AFD period I would reconsider. Google searches per se are not convincing, since they are cluttered with reprints of the manufacturer's press release and many are websites of dubious reliability. Please spare us arguments of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS variety that there are lots of other articles with no proof of notability. Edison (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An especially interesting article - I'd never heard of a lipstick phone before. Plenty of notability, as usual with such items: Google news. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a reference, why should it not include cellphone reference, but yet have biology reference? Dharbigt (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.68.231 (talk) [reply]
Keep, wikipedia has established a standard of phones having articles. If you remove this one it just gives us a big mysterious gap where this article shoudl be.--Him and a dog 08:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Secret ^account 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I relisted the debate as the keeps doesn't have a policy based reasoning, no vote. Secret ^account 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This model may be notable enough on its own merits (witness the 2004 Best Of award) for its own article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have made a few "top [number]" lists, and I found a decent sized review.-Wafulz (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has won a "best of" award, specifically praised in other awards. Certainly notable and deserving of its own article. ~ Carlin _{U T C} @ 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- why the hell not? SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 04:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. I was going to merge, but pretty much all of the material is already in the parent article.-Wafulz (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrantonicity[edit]

Non-notable fictional band. Insufficient references exist to substantiate an article about this fictional entity.

{{prod}} was removed by User:UsaSatsui with the comment "(rm re-added prod per WP:PROD) ". I can't find any edit summary which says a prod was previously added to the article, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles on "a fictional rock 'n roll band" should be deleted from Wikipedia. This type of articles should not exist! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not all fictional rock bands are non-notable. JuJube (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed! --JayHenry (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The prod was removed (a bit messily) here. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Office (U.S. TV series) and/or individual episode articles. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per above suggestion. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the page of the "Office" character who is a member. As a fan of the show, I can say that this isn't very notable. It was only mentioned in passing in four or so episodes Doc Strange (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel that it may need a little clean-up, but it is still a notable facet of the Office. The whole arguement about "Wikipedia is no place for a fictional band" should be disregarded, because their are various band (such as the fiction "Spinal Tap") that have their own pages.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, turn it into a redirect to Kevin.--Him and a dog 09:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Secret ^account 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Scooter for Yaksmas[edit]

Contested prod. These are all articles for individual episodes of The Ren and Stimpy Show. They consist of overlong plot summaries, infoboxes with non-free images, and long quote sections bordering on script excerpts. As of the time of this nomination, not a single one of these fifty articles contains a reference to any source whatsoever, reliable or not. These are not encyclopedia articles, and have practically no hope of ever becoming so.

The prod contester removed the prod saying that he desired the content of the articles merged and redirected to List of episodes of The Ren and Stimpy Show. There is no content to merge, as the episode list already contains brief plot summaries appropriate to a list. Redirecting is needless, as not a single one of these article titles make a reasonable search term. Therefore, I ask that we delete all of these articles. ➪HiDrNick! 17:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These episodes aren't notabile fiction. R&S is a notable show, but each episode isn't individually notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even a dog of a show like Star Trek: Enterprise has a List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes and a page for each one. As to the plot summaries being improper, or the content being problematic, that is a reason to improve, not delete. It is common for popular shows to have a page for each episode, and I would think that the concensus view is that R&S is certainly notable enough to be afforded the same inclusion. Pharmboy (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1)Star Trek: Enterprise was a great show. 2)See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. TJ Spyke 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom., WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:Television episodes. As regards Star Trek Enterprise, WP:WAX.

From WP:NOT#PLOT:

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot.

From WP:Television episodes:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ...it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available.

As the Wikipedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, Wikipedia articles must conform to U.S. copyright laws. It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation.

JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or redirect all. Per WP:EPISODE, nn episodes should be redirected, but leaving this on wikipedia is in some cases like leaving a copyright violation easily accessible, and I see little point in wikipedia hosting them. If someone really wants to transwiki, allow it per request. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as failing WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT, WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT the list already has the necessary summaries, episode numbers, and airdates so nothing to merge. Redirects unneeded as no GFDL info is being merged from one to the other. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the list only contains that information for the first two seasons. There is still some merging work to be done on the rest of the list. Catchpole (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —➪HiDrNick! 00:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Go after the episodes of Enterprise next!! Nearly all TV episodes-- even of popular series-- leave no lasting impression on popular culture. There are a handful, like the Carbon Creek episode of Enterprise, that fans enjoy, but most episodes are of the "keep channel surfing" variety. Mandsford (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Episodes of Star Trek are notable for being widely reviewed; I'd be careful extrapolating from Ren and Stimpy to Star Trek. =) Powers ^T 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close This nom is way too broad. At least break it up by season. There is no reasonable way to establish notability for every episode of The Ren and Stimpy Show ever. This certainly isn't working "collaboratively and constructively" per the recent arbitration. --Phirazo 04:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That arbitration was about unilateral large-scale blankings and redirections of episode articles. It concluded that WP:Television episodes should be applied consistently, and that editors should work collaboratively and constructively. That's why we're here. JohnCD (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comment is saying that large scale deletions like this make it difficult to establish notability seperately. There may be a notable episode or two, but it gets lost in the crowd. It is not constructive to simply delete the entire lot. --Phirazo 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the nominator has gone and tagged every one of these articles, he or she has followed the process. I love the effort to find some technicality to throw out the discussion. Break it up by season and start over? Ren and Stimpy was not some epic saga. As with most cartoons, there was no difference between one season and the next. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I can understand and appreciate your concern, but I can assure you that I am not trying to sneak anything by anyone, and that these articles are substantially identical in both style and structure, each one as lousy as the last. To wit, I can hereby certify that as of the time of my nomination, not a single one of these articles contained a single reference to any source whatsoever. Believe me, I looked; I would be very embarrassed to nominate a notable article for deletion. Without sources, there can be no verifiable assertion of notability. ➪HiDrNick! 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some improvements to Son of Stimpy adding in sources and further third party commentary. Catchpole (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, notable. Everyking (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and kudos for tackling the whole batch; above delete opinions have give all the relevant WP:whatevers, so no need to repeat. Non-notable plot; next. --Jack Merridew 11:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and hats off for th nom for this bold editing initiative. All these articles fail WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF nor do they have any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability under WP:FILM or WP:FICT. They read like TV guide summaries, and fall outside the scope of Wikipedia.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - deleting these articles would be contrary to WP:EPISODE, which would mandate the articles being redirected back to the parent article - List of episodes of The Ren and Stimpy Show. As to the question of whether reliable sources can be found for these shows, a quick google search reveals that the New York Times has a number of reviews from the first run of the show which could be used [15], [16], [17] which mention Emmy award nominations and ratings "astonishing for Nickelodeon". The book Nickelodeon Nation (ISBN 0814736513, New York University Press) has a chapter on Ren and Stimpy which "provides a fascinating look at the wide commercial and audience success of a controversial show that perhaps ought to have been marketed to adults rather than children." [18] and academic Mark Langer's "Animatophilia, Cultural Production and Corporate Interests" is a "serious study of Ren and Stimpy". (Animation World Magazine - issue 3.7 - October 1998). Finally the DVD releases includes commentary and introductions from creator John Kricfalusi and have also caused a number of reviews to be published that analyse individual episodes. [19]. There are many ways for editors to start improving these articles, deletion should only be considered after other searches have proved fruitless. Catchpole (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could be wrong, but it seems that all of your sources address Ren and Stimpy as a whole, or in large parts. None of them get down to the level of individual episodes. Even the last link reviews only the "Lost Episodes" DVD as a whole. No one's denying that the show is notable, but individual episodes just don't have a level of independent coverage that merits individual articles. Powers ^T 15:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, these are great sources for the main Ren and Stimpy article, and I hope to see them included if they are not already. ➪HiDrNick! 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My understanding is that DVD commentaries have been used as sources in a number of individual Simpsons episodes articles. There is no reason the same could not be done here. These articles should at least be redirects and merged (List of episodes of The Ren and Stimpy Show could also do with some work), if you don't the chances are they will be re-created by editors unaware of this discussion. Catchpole (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These fail our notability standards by a country mile & can be more than adequately covered at the LOE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Eusebeus (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Since notability is not inherrited. A show might be notable but its individual episodes are not necessirly so. The sort of detail in these articles would be much better placed in a fansite. A1octopus (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Coolgamer (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may agree, but why? Pharmboy (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as completely non-notable and potentially merge into a list. Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Whiz on the Electric Fence Delete these all. They are fun, but not encyclopedic because there is no indication of notability. We should allow recreation of individual episode articles if reliable sources can be found. It will be better for Wikipedia to delete all then to recreate a few, than deleting them one by one. Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Do Your Ears Hang Low?"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Do Your Ears Hang Low?"

Non-notable song. - Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Turkey in the Straw, all of the article is original research, article is orphaned and no citations. The song does exist (ask any first grader), but it's an offshoot of "Turkey in the Straw" should be merged there Doc Strange (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup, OK, maybe I was a little to hasty with merging this. This still needs to moved to Do Your Ears Hang Low? (delete the qoutes. Currently said article is a redirect to Turkey in the Straw. I think that's why the creator of this article put qoutes over it in the first place) and needs to be cleaned up. Doc Strange (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can appreciate that the nominator may not have heard of this song-- we didn't sing it in the school I went to either-- but it's actually quite common (and popular) in schools, because of all the gestures that go with it. Try googling the title (especially google books), for a clue as to its notability. I disagree with the merge suggestion. It may be to the same tune as "Turkey in the Straw", but the similarities end there. Those two songs are as different as the "ABC song" vs. "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star", or "Yankee Doodle" vs. "Barney is a Dinosaur". Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A more apt comparison would have been "This Old Man" vs. "I Love You", I think. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – LOL, I have heard the same song with slightly different appendages used. (Not to be mentioned here). Sorry if we accept this one, we will have Arms – Legs - - Toes – etc. – etc. – etc. All hanging low. Shoessss | Chat 17:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- I hardly think that would be the case. The other versions don't have the history or notability that the original song does and would likely be deleted outright as something made up. LaMenta3 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – No, the original song was “Turkey in the Straw”. This is just a parody of the original. And with regards to your comment; “…other versions don't have the history or notability “ just go here, [20] and you will see the point I was trying to make.Shoessss | Chat 18:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song is no more a parody of Turkey in the Straw than the ABC song is a parody of Twinkle Twinkle (as another editor has already mentioned). And I kind of take back what I said about the parody where some...other...parts hang low. I actually found a reliable source regarding that parody that certainly warrants its mention in the article about "Do Your Ears...", but not its own article. I've added it as well as cleaned things up a little. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes I changed my opinion, based on several persuasive arguments. Plus addition search criteria which found numerous articles that are independent, reliable, creditable and verifiable. And they say you can not teach a dog new tricks! Shoessss | Chat 21:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is most certainly notable! It is included in numerous collections and books of children's music, it's been sung/taught on children's television shows and live performance stage shows for children. A google search turns up plenty of results that can be used as verification and even to establish notability--the first result is a government site, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, with the lyrics and audio! I would almost call this one a speedy keep. LaMenta3 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly notable with a long history in the US, see this for some background. —Travis ^talk 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ref Travis cited from the New York Times is a good one:[21].Edison (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on this one, but if kept should be moved to Do Your Ears Hang Low?. JuJube (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Move - Extremely notable song. Cleanup and sourcing recommended,along with a move to Do Your Ears Hang Low? with redirect removal. DJBullfish (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song is satire, not parody. ie: it uses the song to make fun of something besides the song. Parody is using the song to make fun of the song itself (think Weird Al and "Fat") And the version I am familiar with is Do Your Balls Hang Low (but don't stuff BEANs up your nose...). I would imagine the song is notable enough, with references to the other 'versions' in this article instead of having their own pages. Or rename the page and make about all Satirical Uses of the song Turkey in the Straw Pharmboy (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable, and independently so from Turkey in the Straw with which is only shares a melody (see "God Save the Queen" and "My Country, 'Tis of Thee"). Possible case of WP:OSTRICH. 23skidoo (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And move as suggested by DJBullish. It being sung to the tune of "Turkey in the Straw" does not mean it has to be merged to that article. Many well known songs and hymns are sung to preexisting tunes, the same as it would be improper to redirect The Star Spangled Banner to To Anacreon in Heaven. This song has received substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. A Google Book search[22] shows that it was featured in "Do Your Ears Hang Low?: Fifty More Musical Fingerplays" by Tom Glaser (1980) and in "Do Your Ears Hang Low?: And Other Silly Songs by Pamela Cote - Music - 1995." In " Musical Games, Fingerplays, and Rhythmic Activities for Early Childhood by Marian Wirth - 1983" it is described as a "favorite." It is included in many collections of favorite children's songs and in kindergarten curriculum, per the Google book search. As for the ad terrorem argument of the possibility of other body parts "hanging low" leading to a series of articles, that is just a part of the song's tradition: adults with a few drinks in them adapt the same song but make it the popular words for breasts or testicles. It would not justify any separate articles, not have refs been cited to support that. That is certainly no barrier to keeping this one. Edison (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a good song and has notability. It deserves its own article. --Chinese3126 (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - current sources show it to be notable. --Beloved Freak 20:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I've never heard of turkey thingy,- this 'ears' song has existed for decades and has been on many albums of children's songs I expect, at least on one I had, and I'm 30 now! Merkinsmum 00:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, with regrets. A wretched song, but noteworthy. Article needs a complete re-write. Majoreditor (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you keep it remove the quotes from title. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Merge with the original song. Please if a redirect is made remove the quotes from the title. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move and very weak keep First move page to Do Your Ears Hang Low? without the punctuation. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LaMenta3. Jon Ace ^T ^C 16:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations[edit]

This is a mostly empty list, populated by mostly redlinks. RogueNinja_talk 16:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:RS/WP:V, and adequately so with (19) sources cited. Consensus guidelines delineated on the talk page. At least 12 of the organizations listed already have some semblance of notability shown, as they have their own articles and are bluelinks, not red. The same can be said for at least six of the individual founders listed next to the organizations. Cirt (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The list appears to have a clear criteria for inclusion, to be well-sourced and NPOV. Many of the entries do have articles, indicating the general notability of the topic. I don't see a reason to delete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list gives Christian countercult movement and Anti-cult movement editors a chance to note their Opposition to cults and new religious movements in a way which both avoids cluttering up the Large Group Awareness Training article while still meeting WP:RS. If the issue is redlines, those should be de-wikified for now and notability of individual organizations addressed at those articles. Rorybowman (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Given the concerns about LGATs, it seems appropriate to keep a list. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More pointless listcruft - if somebody wants to read about one of these groups they would be better off reading the individual article on the group than seeing the group listed on a "list". The above comment "given the concerns about LGATs..." is also a big clue that this list is intended to promote a POV regarding these groups, lump them together, or as a blacklist. Get rid of it. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, and strongly recommend immediate cleanup to address noted maintenance issues.JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Norman[edit]

1) Lack of verifiability, 2)Lack of notability LeyteWolfer (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the significant Trustee/Chairman etc positions running public bodies, which alone meet WP:BIO, even without his business career. I can't see a verifiability issue at all - the article needs referencing but just fancy that - he is indeed Chairman of the Royal Ballet School! Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. The link by Johnbod above isn't sufficient to show notability, IMO. Terraxos (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended to, but to address the bogus verifiability issue. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Bogus' is a weasel word meant to impugn the valid claim that there are no references (no, usenet doesn't count, John) provided in the article to back the numerous claims of notability in the article. And, I've noticed, the above 'proof' has not been added by..ahem...anyone, in order to improve the article. Fancy that. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a "Lack of verifiability"? - no there isn't. There may be a lack of people prepared to do the legwork adding referencing, but after my experiment I am confident the many claims to notability in the article could be verified with little difficulty. If you find "bogus" "weasel" let me be plainer; the nomination seems to me to be wrong, mistaken, lazy and incompetent, is that better? Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's watch the rhetoric, John. As you may or may not know, prognosticators quoted on radio, print and the internet have foreseen the 'demise' of Wikipedia due to a) vandalism, b) spam, & c) vanity submissions. As we all agree here, the article is far from encyclopedic ("not yet ready for prime time") and can easily be suspect as a vanity piece. In such a case, a peer review process such as this is definitely warranted and preferable. The request for an AFD review is appropriate. Unless you are using two or more usernames, you don't appear to have an emotional commitment to this article and your statements attributing the peer review to be 'bogus,' 'wrong,' 'mistaken,' 'lazy' and 'incompetent' [QFT] don't appear to assume good faith, nor in keeping with your numerous peer awards. No worries here: random aggression from just any 'joe' has absolutely no effect on me or my day, but I'd dislike seeing Editors with weak constitutions for such comments from being run off when we vandal patrollers are so outnumbered by those that don't have the Wikipedia Project in mind when they strike. Just in case you're having a bad day and to show that there are no hard feelings from this side, here's a smile:

LeyteWolfer (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
We're all on the same team, John!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--LeyteWolfer (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's appreciated. As is plain from the above, I was only more explicit after "bogus" was considered "weasel words". All the same, "wrong" and "mistaken" can hardly be considered breaches of AGF, and the nomination can (I hope you agree) hardly be taken as the most thorough on record. Absolutely no evidence of "verififiability" issues has been produced, and no argumentation as to why the subject is non-notable. It is fairly clear to me that the article has not been produced by anyone connected with the subject, but by one or more of WP's many royals/aristocracy obsessives. It the subject was involved it would no doubt have far more on his career & far less on his wife and son-in-law's relatives. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, Norman Broadbent seems to be a fairly important transAtlantic firm, and he's been called a "forefather of headhunting"[23] and a "lone ranger"[24]

. Sounds worthy of at least a stub. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This just looks like fancruft or a self-promotion. I really don't know anything about the guy, but something about the article just rings wrong, makes me doubt its sincerity. --Revanche (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a resume and badly needs clean-up but the positions seem notable enough. And the source Johnbod found helps alot. Article for which sources exist but have not yet been added aren't deleted but instead fixed. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and verified. add sources referenced in this discussion at or before closing. ∴ here…♠ 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Samuels[edit]

Is not a CSD A7 as importance/significance is asserted, but this person appears not to be notable enough for a biography given the acting work he has done has been sparse and in minor roles. Apparently he'll be doing a film in the future but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to pass guideline at WP:BIO at this time. No secondary source coverage that I can see, and does not appear to have had any significant roles on television or film yet. May be notable enough in the near future, but not yet.--Beloved Freak 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly delete-worthy. --Revanche (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calexico carne asada[edit]

Multi-tagged and unsourced article about a food cart in New York. Contains claims of notability (Top 3 in Vendy Awards), none of which I could verify. It does not seem that the coverage of the cart goes beyond mere listings. trialsanderrors (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above rational. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal-class strike carrier[edit]

Adding after AfD has had several comments - This was my oversight, and I don't think they're all that different from the articles listed above. Please feel free to ~~strike out~~ this addition if you object to it. --EEMIV (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary for classes of ships. The ship classes as a whole don't play a notable role in the video games, let alone the real world. No sources to substantiate development, critical response, or any other real-world impact. --EEMIV (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete per nom. ~~Note to admin: Dont forget to delete the category if this results in delete.~~ RogueNinja_talk 16:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of the ships in Category:Wing Commander spacecraft have been nominated -- just the capital ships. Starfighters are next, and from there specific, name ships. --EEMIV (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad. I was going to do this before, and I thought these were all the ships. RogueNinja_talk 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Totally not notable unless their can be an establishment of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note the result of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kilrathi_Heavy_Destroyer RogueNinja_talk 18:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of work went into these, but sad to say they fall well short of WP:NOTE. RMHED (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and a commendation to the nominator for this bold initiative. These articles all fail WP:NOT#GUIDE and their heavy in universe perspective fails WP:WAF. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability of these fictional craft outside of the Wing Commander cannon. This type of fancruft which has no real-world information falls outside the scope of Wikipedia, and is covered elsewhere on Wingcommnder fansites. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 14:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the above. This is non-notable fiction. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 01:45, January 21, 2008

Qtrax[edit]

Delete - Article has been up since Jan 2007. This is for a music download company that has still not launched. Delete since WP is not a crystal ball and the company fails notability guidelines. All the articles out there are from 2006 and 2007 predicting its launch which has not (and might never) happen. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't care if they open tomorrow, last month, or next year, as at this point, they are simply not notable in the least and utterly fail WP:WEB. Vaporware doesn't make you notable. Pharmboy (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced commando combat system[edit]

AfDs for this article:

None of the cited sources are good, 3rd party sources. Ive looked for any sort of official website, and found none. The system makes insane claims such as being able to kill people through cardiac tamponade.

I can find nothing that shows it to be anything other than a system that claims to be the official system of the Indian army. RogueNinja_talk 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After having reviewed the sources they are distinctly wanting for the most part (see the talk page) with limited if any relevance to the Advanced commando combat system. Notability is questionable and the initial advertorial could also indicate an advert or hoax. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Deepak Rao and add a redirect for Seema Rao there (and rewrite). The Raos seem to have notability but while I voted Keep last time, on further review and given the continued sorry state of the article I'm inclined to focuson the fact that the references focus more on the Raos than this particular system. This is largely an advert for their nn school/system. JJL (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed that it seems mostly an advert. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It 'seems' an advert? All the references are scanned original documents of Official Army communication counterfeiting which would amount to a grievous offence. The very fact that they are boldy displaying them shows true merit. Righead (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is only one of the letters mentions the Advanced commando combat system; the problem is not the existence but what it shows. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to note, User:Righead's only contributions are to this one article and this afd RogueNinja_talk 09:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin close. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Spotnitz[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Columbia University Medical Center. Hu12 (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sorry to disagree. Found 135 hits on Google Scholar as shown here [25] which is pretty impressive in its own right. In addition, found several verifiable, creditable and notable publications here [26]. Believe the gentlemen is clearly very notable in his field. Shoessss | Chat 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. per Shoessss ;)--Hu12 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD A7'd by... a couple of admins so far, as seen in log). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idrees Majeed[edit]

This is a vanity article. There is no evidence of notability.Peppi35 (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree - Could find NO information. Shoessss | Chat 15:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this artist meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Cannot find and secondary sources on him. --Beloved Freak 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Casteleyn[edit]

Non-notable individual who took part in a public consultation; one of a number of articles created by User:Florian Gommel which could well be either vanity articles or articles about friends. Majority of google hits are wikipedia or wikipedia mirror sites. Prod notice was removed by an IP user who also removed cleanup and notability concern tags. Robotforaday (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Afd notice was removed by Special:Contributions/194.29.98.144 (the same IP address as removed the prod). I have restored it and placed a message on the talk page for that IP user asking him or her not to remove the afd notice. Robotforaday (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And removed again by Special:Contributions/194.29.97.144. Robotforaday (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Robotforaday (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the author cares not to defend it in AfD but sidestep the process, and has all the earmarks of a self-promotion... a certain cliche about a duck comes to mind. Flush it. --Revanche (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Leach (writer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete – fails WP:BIO and WP:RS; and the two main works (both self-published) are no longer available as the links go to a single title page only The Ghost | ^séance 14:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – For reasons stated above. Could find no information. Shoessss | Chat 15:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Shoessss about lack of information but I'm concerned that the subject of this article himself has been trying to get it removed. The e-books he has evidently written have apparently been withdrawn from the internet only recently, apart from their title pages. It seems this man is under some pressure and I think the site should remove this article quickly: after all, it can always be recreated. In addition, it appears to me that the two cricket societies named may not meet the terms of WP:RS because I suspect that they are publishing their own members' material: in-house, as it were. Perhaps someone with more knowledge could clarify that. --JamesJJames (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. --GeorgeWilliams (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All his work has been removed so no longer anything to base an article upon. --Einar (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Robinson, Jr.[edit]

delete - utterly non-notable. Mostly written by the subject himself as a vanity project. CarlPeters (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Could be a hoax. --The Ghost | ^séance 14:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I do appreciate the gentlemen’s contribution. However, sounds like just a nice guy that has not gained notability at the level required here at Wikipedia yet. Hopefully the book takes off and we have the opportunity to see Mr. Robinson article here at Wikipedia as a “Best” selling author. Shoessss | Chat 15:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: vanity piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revanche (talk • contribs) 01:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Also clearly not notable.Gwynand (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Chandy[edit]

One sentence biography which claims, without evidence, that he is an 'important entity'. Google search for "Pradeep Chandy" AND "Kerala" gives Wikipedia and two non-Wiki hits, both directory entries, the second self-authored. No suggestion of notability. Article was created by a one-edit user. Emeraude (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability by any standard as there is simply no basis to figure out who this person is. I note however, that the first entry in the history appears to be reversion from a earlier action. Does anyone know what happened to the original history? Xymmax (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at the edit history of 203.193.163.131 would seem to suggest that the creator of this article simply copied one of their edit summaries as the edit summary for the creation of this article (note the exact number of the undone revision). Delete this article as a failure of WP:V, possible speedy A1. Deor (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Revanche (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 01:47, January 21, 2008

Nexus War[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable MMORPG. Was created at Nexus war but deleted. Keilana^talk 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like this actually should be the third nomination. It appears the result of the first afd was no consensus, and the second was delete. Xymmax (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G4 Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, changes were made to more accomadate the rules. CSD G4 doesn't relate. 71.141.139.105 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 14:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources appearing in a web search, the Escapist article brought up in another AFD is literally a passing mention of no use, there's one possible magazine source brought up in another AFD but one isn't enough to balance an article. Contributors interested in writing an article about Nexus War should scout out sources (if they exist) before adding it back. Someone another 14:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game may be non-notable to most people(I admit, I play it). However, I believe it to be better long-term to leave the wiki-page in existence, with the caveat that more sources are to be listed as they become available. The article itself needs to note the beta nature of the game, and the low userbase. As well, there is absolutely NO chance of creating a decent article from several bad deleted attempts at one so long as there is constant deletion. As a member of the Nexus War community, I can tell you there is a want for a Wikipedia page. Currently, however, popular sentiment is closer to (I paraphrase) "wiki-nazis don't play the game, so they just delete it as being non-notable". Surely we pride ourselves on being inclusive, rather than exclusive? The apathy with which this (rather good) game is treated frankly appalls me. Keep in mind that problems like these are one of the major reasons that people dislike Wikipedia - don't beat up on the helpful contributors. I would rather not get into the "look at this less-notable article, etc" game, as that is a sure road to madness(I could name a few articles that qualify). --EugeneKay 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability isn't a measure of how much anyone likes X, it's whether or not X measures up to the notability guideline. The article should be reinstated when sources appear, if they appear. WP is a tertiary source which does not allow original research, by its very nature we need secondary sources to craft half-decent articles. The quality of writing is not under question, whether it passes the inclusion guideline is. Deleted articles can be reinstated by administrators, there's no need to write from scratch but there is a need to get those sources first, it's not much to ask that Nexus Wars measures up to the same sourcing standards expected from every WP article. Contributors putting the article up for deletion or agreeing it should be deleted are assuming good faith - constant recreation is ignoring the bold-typed warning on the creation page "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted" and causes these drawn out debates. If Nexus Wars players are labouring under the misconception that being a player has anything to do with it, they need to look again at why the article gets deleted. The whole point of WP is that you don't need to be an 'expert' to write about something, you use the primary source and informed secondary sources to do the talking. Someone another 09:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Im not logged in so im not going to "vote", but i will leave a comment. Dont think it would make much of a difference either way, but i need to get this off my chest. Im going to say that an insistence on dead tree sources for online media is unfair, not just to this article, but much of the content of the internet. Many of these websites may have thousands of followers, large numbers of interesting innovations and be otherwise worthy of an article here, but this dead tree standard has them stumped because mainstream publishing does not like to do stories about them, more than likely because there arent a terribly large number of magazines covering the subject and they have to meet a certain level of profitability which printing extra pages doesnt really help. Its because of this rather obvious problem that faces most online media that you really should lean towards inclusionism, rather than deltionism as you have been doing for quite some time. Thats not to say you should let everything stay, just that you should apply common sense on a case by case basis instead of conducting purges, the likes of which have been performed against the webcomics community in the last couple of years. Its probably a good idea to have a seperate set of notability guidelines written up to cover online media simply because its patently obvious the existing ones do not treat it fairly. This media seems to be as good a place as any to apply WP:IAR, specifically with regards to Notability. --121.44.124.196 (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure where you've got this idea that published sources = paper-based. Websites are perfectly acceptable and for online content are usually the most prolific. They still have to be reliable though. Common sense has been applied, repetition of the primary source is not a balanced article. WP is an encyclopedia not a webcomics directory - a lot of noise was generated because fans seem to think that splurging plot details makes a comic notable and passes as an encyclopedia article. Online entertainments don't suddenly vanish into the ether when their articles are deleted, if anyone is interested in covering these comics/games/gruops then nobody is stopping them from adding information in a more appropriate place, the web is full of sites catering to these things.Someone another 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Non-notable MMORPG." You have not convinced me of this. --Ircgeht (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:N, notability is not a measure of how much something is liked, it's an inclusion guideline with specific criteria. Someone another 08:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Ircgeht (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof to create or maintain an article is on editors adding to it. That burden of proof seems not to be in the article. Anyway, point is, the task is to articulate the topic's notability, not for the nominator to show that it isn't notable. --EEMIV (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per EugeneKay. 67.186.240.179 (talk) Kalir, from Uncyclopedia 03:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User doesn't have suffrage? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Ekashp. However, the article does need improvement and perhaps cleaning. --Cypris (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of articles need improvement, but that's not what's being asked for here. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate notability and to create an encyclopedia article rather than a summary of gameplay. If that's all the article can be then readers can find that information on Nexus Wars' homepage. Someone another 08:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Besides the WP:ILIKEIT players of this game above, I do not see this game as being notable. Furthermore, I doubt it ever will be. In the genre of text based MMORPGs, there are very few sources around, and the hopeful comments above that there will be are a filibuster. Finally, the article was deleted last time, with the note that sources may become available, and that the article may be recreated at that time. No sources have appeared now, a year later. User:Krator (t c) 12:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I completely disagree with it being a "not-notable MMORPG". You have failed to list any views on why it isn't notable. Rather than deleting it, you could suggest ways to improve it. Give the community some time to improve and add sources to show it's notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metnik (talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 3rd nom (after two previous iterations), there's been plenty of time to find sources. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I like MMORPGs, although I've never played this one. I understand the dynamics quite well. However, I can't find a reliable source for this game, and NO ONE who has commented has done so. In reference to the comment(s) above, let me be clear - in Wikipedia terms notability means nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. If you can come up with a couple of reliable sources (as described at the link) the article will survive. If you don't, it's likely to be deleted. Additionally, on the article talk page an editor has offered to adopt the article to improve it. In response, this AfD will run for at least 5 days - that gives you three more days at the time I write this comment. If you can find a couple of reliable sources in that time, you can say "Look by your own rules NW is notable" and will likely be the end of it. Otherwise, well, you know... Xymmax (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You have failed to list any views on why it isn't notable. 1) It hasn't recieved any attention from reliable gaming press. 2)Google search, with typical filters ("Nexus War" +MMORPG -wiki -forum) has only 82 hits; 318 with "game" instead of "MMORPG". 3) Article presents no material backed up with reliable references. I'll be the first to change my opinion to keep should a few good review / article sources appear. Marasmusine (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS --75.31.211.128 (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - WP:N. Someone another 09:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The argument that it cannot achieve notability status when it is constantly deleted has merit; however, if it had any notable articles ever written about it, it would be hped that a previous veteran of this delete war would quickly add it, when the article gets re-built. --Revanche (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the "constantly deleted" argument. The last Afd was a bit more than one year ago. Surely that's enough time to marshal evidence of notability? Xymmax (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- An article is the product of sources, deletion of that product does not affect anyone's ability to search for sources or affect the existence of sources. Sources = article, it's that simple. Someone another 09:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nexus War was reviewed and the creator interviewed in "Custom PC Magazine", 2007. Custom PC Magazine is a primarily a paper-based publication readily findable in UK newsagents, and has perfectly good journalistic standards: it should count as a) independent and b) reliable. It also lists the game in the top 10 games of that type. The article is also on the net at http://www.custompc.co.uk/features/102681/casual_gaming.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agema (talk • contribs) 13:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great source, If there was another like that I'd switch to keep in a heartbeat. Someone another 16:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though in fairness that is the magazine source which has been brought up before (previous AFD and a deletion review), we're still waiting for other sources :/ Someone another 16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:N, the newly added source fits both "significant coverage" and "reliable source" criterions. While "multiple sources are generally preferred", it is not compulsory. I see no reason why this article shouldn't be allowed to stay. Cixilibrium (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not new, its existence was brought up before and at least one other source has been requested before the article was considered over the notability hurdle. Multiple sources may not be needed in some cases (it's a general encyclopedia, we could be talking about some historical machine) but for entertainment we need them for reception information and to put it above blurb/summarized instructions. The state of sources is exactly the same as it was a year ago and that's the crux of the problem. Someone another 15:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is fallacious. As per WP:N#TEMP, "if a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". I still see no reason why the article shouldn't be allowed to stay. Cixilibrium (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source alone does not pass the notability guideline so N#temp is irrelevant. The state of sourcing has not changed since this was last deleted or presesnted for a deletion review. Someone another 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated that the article meets WP:N criterions for all intents and purposes. If the sourcing has not changed since the last deletion review, I can only wonder why it was deleted in the first place. Cixilibrium (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet notability requirements because there aren't multiple, reliable and non-trivial sources. That's the reason why it was deleted and not restored, and that hasn't changed during the course of this AFD. Not having multiple sources is no less of an impediment than having unreliable sources or just trivial mentions - it still results in a subject which cannot be written about to a basic standard of encyclopedia article. Two out of three ain't good, in this case. The way forward is to bring the article back if and when more sources appear, back it comes, in go the sources and we're away. Someone another 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A casual search found a few sources. I'll admit they're not terribly good sources(magazine, major site), but they are sources.

Online Games Inn - a MMO review/comparison site
Free Play - a review of the game on a blog.
Seibertton - Primarily a Transformers fan-site, has a review up.

EugeneKay 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If sources like those did the job this AFD would have closed a unanimous keep because there's stacks of them out there and several people discussing this have been trawling through them. OnlineGamesInn is just a funnel-site, typified by listing bog standard details about games, allowing visitors to vote yay or nay and then push advertising because of the traffic this generates. Sources like that serve no purpose, they aren't about providing content they're about providing links and their reliability (in WP terms) is zilch.

Free-play appears to be a personal blog with no credentials, the only difference between that and a gamefaqs reader review is who's hosting it. Examples of blogs which would make good sources would be sites like Game Set Watch (produced by writers for Gamasutra and Game Developer (magazine)).

The Seibertron source is a forum post, inherently undesirable, by a forum user. Seibertron may or may not be a reliable source for transformers, but its forum users' opinions of video games is neither here nor there in terms of reliably sourcing an article. It's good to see a NW supporter spreading the word, but it's not something we can do anything with.Someone another 22:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 02:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rescreatu[edit]

The nominator of this article, 208.131.130.235 (talk · contribs), says "non-notable website, unencyclopedic". Procedural nomination. No opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 12:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. It certainly has an internet presence, but it fails WP:WEB because I can find no reliable source that mentions it at all. Most mentions are either the site itself, or sites that permit the user to control the content. The site does claim close to 40,000 members, which does tend to suggest notability, but again, I can't find a disinterested source to back this up. Xymmax (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 11:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not presently shown to be notable. Until subject is demonstrably significant, an article would all too readily be used to promote the subject. —SlamDiego_←T 13:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rampazze[edit]

CSD was denied by admin simply because it lists some achievements, but there are no proofs of these achievements which mostly are campus finalist festivals. Checked on Google hit came a number of free webpages that they'd created themselves (myspace, isound, showcaseyourmusic, etc.). Nope, it does not pass notability guidelines to have an article here. Admin suggested AfD, so here we go.... Dekisugi (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to go out on a limb and say there's a probable COI issue since this article was created by Rampazze. I have no problem with this nomination, in fact, I probably would do so myself. Still, this article was tagged for deletion three whole minutes after creation, and was brought here within twelve minutes. Hopefully this Afd will be left open the full five days to permit the authors a chance to show notability. From what I can see, the contests are the only real assertion of notability, but they didn't win any of them. None of the contests look big enough that simply placing is notable. If there's more information available, especially about the scope of the competitions, I'll reconsider. Xymmax (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may be simplistic, but when user:Rampazze who has no previous history, creates an article with this title, I calls it spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Valentine (Playwright)[edit]

Not notable. Blatant self-promotion. Zenwhat (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: self-promotion. Borders on being a coatrack. --Revanche (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Bonacheck[edit]

DELETE. This is a minor, recurring character who was brought in solely for one particular storyline. Most viewers would not condider this character notable. Kogsquinge (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google returns few hits, certainly nothing even close to a reliable secondary source. Doubtful that WP:FICT can be satisfied. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Minor characters surely do not warrant an article. I doubt if it even warrants a mention in the article about the program. --JamesJJames (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Macklin[edit]

no calim of noatability Montchav (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seem to be quite a few Ken Macklins, none particularly notable, and no reliable sources on this one. Jfire (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There seems to be a lack of reliable sources. Searches seem to indicate that the subject is non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: wow...simply....wow. --Revanche (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (non-admin closure). SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 04:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of asteroids/7201–7300[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of asteroids/7201–7300

Per Wikipedia is not a directory, this is an extremely technical article with only a couple actual "asteroids" being notable enough to have articles themselves. Zenwhat (talk)

Keep we've been here before, with many of these lists. They have always been upheld. A list is suitable for those not having enough information for an article, or where an article has not yet been written. DGG (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, this seems to be a well organized and useful list. Benjiboi 22:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ARS was requested to review this by Zenwhat. This AfD is improperly focused on one page in a list of pages. I might think differently on an AfD for the main article at List of minor planets; what might be more appropriate for Wikipedia is the main article on Minor planets plus a reference to an external list; but if this list was specially compiled for Wikipedia, and does not exist elsewhere, I'd keep it. I did look briefly at one of the references, and it lacked links to specific articles on notable asteroids. This article seems useful to me. --Abd (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel that this is a bad faith nomination that Zenwhat is attempting to use to acuse the ARS of votestacking. Fosnez (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This catalog of asteroids contains no secondary information which merits article status and is cluttering up the encyclopaedia with its huge and ever-growing size. The data would be more appropriate for Wikisource. Note that we have a List of notable asteroids - the others are, by definition, not notable. The rate of discovery is now such that less than 10% have names and, even when they have a name, this is often frivolous, e.g. being named after the discoverer's dog. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As said above, we've been through this before. But I do agree with Col. Warden that the lists should be moved to Wikisource (WS), somehow. When a technical solution showing how this can be done in a truly language-neutral fashion appears, I'll be happy to participate in the moving effort. Besides whatever requirements WS may have (which I haven't looked into yet), the question is simply how do we link the WS discovery sites and discoverer names back to the Wikipedia (remember that the WS pages will need to somehow accommodate all wikipedias). Does WS have the technical facilities for this? Can a WS page somehow be "embedded" in a Wikipedia (WP) page so that wikicode elements in the page can exploit this context? Something similar to template arguments, perhaps? Or maybe we can supply each WS page with a drop-down list of languages (set from the user's default preference, maybe) that would be in turn exploited by the page? Right now, I don't know how to do this or whether it can be done at all. Urhixidur (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable list, widely used. I'm curious why this particular list is being targeted rather than List of asteroids/7101–7200, etc etc? 23skidoo (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Widely used? This seems unlikely - please explain. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list, not an article, and it's an encyclopedic list, with a well-defined inclusion criterion. Spacepotato (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've been through this now at least four times, I think. A list is not violating WP:NOT#DIR just because it is "long" and takes, gasp, 1800 "entries" in the article space. WP is not paper, and the list itself is well defined and encyclopedic. Awolf002 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much more efficient than having articles for each individual asteroid. Contains a lot of very useful information. Does not fail any point listed under WP:NOT#DIR, it is not a list of loosely associated topics, it is not a list of non-notable people, is not a telephone or buissness directory, it is not a sales catalogue, and does not contain a cross categorisation. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered by WP:NOT#DIR in that it is a Directory (database). It could not be more like such a thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. And this list is hardly frivolous. Stuff like this can only be good for wikipedia's image as a useful and serious research tool.The Zig (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks to be a good use for a list for, as of yet, uncreated articles. Well defined in scope and it's encyclopedic information. Ensures that, as Articles are created from the redlinks, they are created using the same naming format (following precedent and keeping the Wiki encyclopedic). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MadriSX[edit]

no claim of noatability Montchav (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero hits in Google news. Jfire (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a real lack of sources on this one and it appears non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart (disambiguation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page was first nominated for deletion which resulted in a no consensus. The page was then moved to List of Wal-Mart articles since it was a list of walmart articles not anything which someone could possibly think they would get when they type in "walmart". That page was then integrated in the the walmart article itself and it's template and the page itself redirected. This page was then recreated. The page itself does no contain a single term that anyone could possibly think they would get by typing "walmart" it serves no purpose and is unused. The walmart template already organizes this information in a clearer fashion. Jon513 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's clearly not a dab page, so it can't continue as is. Further, the content already exists elsewhere, so there's nothing to merge. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reason as AndrewHowse. RIP-Acer (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the listings on this page are for topics not directly linked to Wal-Mart. If there were, for example, a song with Wal-Mart as its name (or part of), Wikipedians would have no problem with there being a disambiguation page to distinguish it. Meanwhile, this list includes a TV series episode, a neologism, a fossil bone, a golf tournament, and more.Shaliya waya (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly think that a person would type "walmart" and expect to see Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes, a 2004 episode of Comedy Central's South Park? Nothing on the list is named just "walmart" (expect for wal-Mart) they either have walmart in the name or is just related to walmart. There is no need to organized this information as a disamibg page when there is no confusion about them. Jon513 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, myself, often search for more obscure topics this way, and I do find them on disambiguation pages. If I do it, I am sure many others do too.Shaliya waya (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The article does not meet the guidelines and specifications of disambiguation pages, per WP:DISAMBIG. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom; it's just not a real disambig page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The person who created this probably doesn't understand the meaning of "disambiguation" and thought it meant "articles about [subject]" instead of "articles that have the same or very, very similar names" Doc Strange (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think this is redundant and the nom demonstrates in the rationale that there's no better place to put this. Presumably the main Wal-Mart article has a link saying "For other uses, see Wal-Mart (disambiguation)" so anyone looking for spin-off articles has a quick reference page. I really don't see the problem, especially since there are no redlinks to be seen. WP:PAPER. 23skidoo (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are 2 parts to the problem here. The first part is that the contents of the page under review are already embedded in the "See Also" section of Wal-Mart, so it is redundant. The second is that the page under review is not a disambiguation page. Just having the d-word in the title doesn't make it so, and this one doesn't meet the standard. WP:DAB. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"For other uses, see Wal-Mart (disambiguation)" -- this just doesn't make sense. The only use of the actual term "Wal-Mart" is for the store(s) and the company that runs it, and nothing else, since it's a trademarked term. Sure, there are a couple of neologisms and terms that use "Wal-Mart" in them, like "Wake Up Wal-Mart" and the "Wal-Mart camel", which is why they're mentioned under the current 'see also' section. But nobody searching for "Wal-Mart" is going to actually expect to find these other things, which is why the disambiguation page is not appropriate. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the see also section of Wal-Mart of whatever is still missing. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has actually already been done; hence the reason that the disambiguation page was nominated for deletion. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible compromise:I have changed "Walmart" from a redirect to Wal-Mart to a disambiguation page. This is not in stone. But I would like to see if anyone here will accept that as a compromise.Shaliya waya (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree! Everything on the list is spelled "wal-mart"! Making walmart a disambig page makes no sense at all and is completely against every wikipedia convention. Why are you so attached to this page? Jon513 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to find a compromise. I guess we're thinking of dab pages in different ways. I'm going by a rather strict definition, which is my understanding of policy. It seems that you're seeking to use it as a collecting point for articles, but that's my interpretation of your actions so you should correct me if appropriate. If I've read you correctly, then I think the right place, if any, to collect these articles is a "List of ..." page. I don't know what the exact title should be; List of pop culture references to Wal-Mart?

In any event, I think Walmart should just redirect to Wal-Mart; it's just a way of catching inexact spelling. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made it Walmart (disambiguation) after someone did not like having Walmart not redirect.Shaliya waya (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings us full circle. It's no more a disambiguation page than is Wal-Mart (disambiguation). You, Shaliya waya, seem to feel strongly that this content deserves a place in WP, in addition to the "See also" section of Wal-Mart. I don't think anyone else here, including me, knows why you feel that way, and I can't find anywhere that you've explained why. (Again, if I've mis-stated your position, then plse clarify.) Trying to force the content onto any kind of disambiguation page doesn't fit the definition of a dab page; it's not about the name but about the class of page. Perhaps you should take the content to a userpage until you find an appropriate home for it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I disagree even more with this than the regular disambiguation page! It's a horrible idea! "Walmart" is just not correct; the name of the corporation is "Wal-Mart", with the hyphen. The only acceptable use here is to redirect Walmart to Wal-Mart. I don't know why Shaliya waya is so adamant about making sure that there's a disambiguation page here; none of these cases meet the definitions & guidelines, per WP:DISAMBIG. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zap. No way is this a disambiguation page. It might be retitled Wal-Mart odds and sods, or just deleted. Its content doesn't merit a hatnote to Wal-Mart. (One or two items within it might be intelligently worked into Wal-Mart.) Even if there were a Wal-Mart disambiguation page, it wouldn't contain most of this stuff: compare George Bush, a disambiguation page that quite rightly doesn't bother with articles such as The Lies of George W. Bush; the point being, when you're looking for "George Bush" you're looking for somebody called George Bush, not for a book (however good) about the beloved Leader of the Free World or whatever it might be. Morenoodles (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been wanting to compromise, several others are just using this board to play nasty politics or be seemingly hateful about this issue. I feel that a page like this is necessary because there are titles containing "Wal-Mart" in some form. There are some books that have been published with Wal-Mart in the title, too, though I haven't taken the time to research what they are, and they could be mentioned in the articles about their authors. Regardless, some page like this, which can be accessed from a link at the top of the main Wal-Mart page, is needed.Shaliya waya (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is playing politics and nobody is being hateful; everyone is interested in making a better encyclopedia, we just have different views of how to do it. I understand that you think a link at the top of the page is needed, but I along with other believe that the Category:Wal-Mart, the Template:Wal-Mart and the See also already organize this information in the best way possible. Jon513 (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Main[edit]

No evidecne of notability. The things claimed in the article would make him notable, but no references are given. Searching for his name alone on Google isn't so useful, but even "Will Main" skier and "Will Main" "Crested Butte" and "Will Main" freestyle skiing didn't produce anything convincing Montchav (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom; no reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There is a lack of sources to verify importance. He appears non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't match up to WP:N, notability not established since March of last year. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music in Brainiac: Science Abuse[edit]

A detailed listing of music from a TV show where music is not central in any way. IMO, not encyclopedic. Zocky | picture popups 11:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! This show is barely notworthy to begin with, this really should belong on some fan site. Lugnuts (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although i disagree with Lugnuts' proclaimation that Braniac is "barely noteworthy" (It is because of its worldwide syndication aside from it appearing on Sky One), this itself is still total listcruft Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have to agree, this is just kinna a pointless list. IMHO. IF I were watching the show, I wouldn't be paying attention to the music. I'm in amazement at how much of it is actually bluelinked though. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, there are many unknown songs. --SpeedKing (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as attack page. Tikiwont (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane lieberman[edit]

Article is clearly vandalism. Barry m (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Georg C. F. Greve. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brave GNU World[edit]

Defunct website, author is notable but that doesn't transfer to all of his works. Newspaper columns do not appear to be generally considered notable in themselves on WP. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Georg C. F. Greve. Contributors included other notables. A few lines on it, with an ext link to the archive, would be a good idea, and Greve's article is as good a place as any. Technobadger (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Merger or redirect works just fine. -- Taku (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White van speakers[edit]

I don't see why this is notable. It seems to have happened to lots of people, but so has burning toast when making breakfast, which doesn't deserve an article. The article mostly seems to be a "how to" guide - how to avoid this, what to look out for, what to do if it happens to you, what brands to avoid - which doesn't belong in Wikipedia Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject doesn't seem notable enough to warrant such a lengthy article. Perhaps a condensed entry in the article Confidence trick would be more appropriate? TicketMan - Talk - contribs 12:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; cited, notable article. Cleaning up HOWTO stuff is a matter for cleanup, not AfD. It has the cites, it's been noted by reliable sources, what more do we need?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - but I don't see what makes this notable, which is my main point. If I created the hypothetical burning toast when making breakfast article I mentioned and found lots of reliable sources which referred to this, it still wouldn't be notable enough for an article. Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why wouldn't burning toast when making breakfast be notable enough for an article? More importantly, whether or not your hypothetical article would be notable--a subject I hesitate to judge without an actual article before me--this is a complete article on a small but widespread subject. It's cited with enough reliable sources, it's certainly verifiable, and you've cited nothing nor even made an argument as to why it's not notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you created an article on a subject that has multiple published works from independent and reliable sources that discuss it in depth, then that subject is notable. See Wikipedia:Notability. You are applying notability wrongly. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Like Prosfilaes, I believe this is probably worthy of some cleanup, but it has the cites, it's notable. -- Kaszeta (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First I've heard of it, but the newspaper story is a nontrivial mention, and "This American Life" is nationally distributed by NPR. Clean up and keep. Xymmax (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Post Gazette article, included as a ref, says it is a scam which has been around over 30 years, and always involves white vans. The National Public Radio coverage is another reliable reference. Pretty funny stuff. Edison (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clean out the "how to/how to avoid" content if that is an issue, but keep the article. As far as the burning toast when making breakfast analogy, this is less common (in my experience, as I've been offered white van speakers but never make toast), involves a third party (an organized ring of con men), and is usually more expensive (unless said toast incident leads to a house fire, I suppose). - Foetusized (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good sources, and seems notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone who watches and helps maintain this article, I do agree that it needs some work. But I don't agree that it should be deleted, as per the reasons that have already been given. Bloodshedder (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEEEEP - It is right on, and is a very accurate article. It is definitely notable, especially in terms of how prevalent the scam has become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.196.32 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, needs much' better sourcing though. --Dhartung | Talk 09:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's got one newspaper-quality source that talks directly about this issue, and numerous links from a registered anti-scam 501(c) non-profit organisation - so it's certainly a notable phenomenon. Could perhaps use some more work. Having practical value is no grounds for delete! The Zig (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adequately sourced article, AfD Isn't Cleanup®, and it even passes the "I've heard of this" test (though, admittedly, that's because I used to be an active kuro5hin reader =). Besides, any article with a sentence like "In Pennsylvania, the act of selling white van speakers is punishable by up to five years in prison and up to a fine of $10,000" is an instant keep. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wwwwolf. There's plenty for a good article in here.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of good information and a very prevalent practice that is helpful to know about.edg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.63.79.124 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep the article, it's informative and well referenced. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 00:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 02:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kanohi[edit]

long original research essay about non-notable objects from the fictional bionicle universe. No real world context and the only sources are primary sources. Ridernyc (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable outside fictional universe. Pharmboy (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Morton[edit]

A.J. Morton is the same individual as Jamie Morton, an article about whom was deleted after discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Morton). While I cannot access the deleted version to see whether the contents are "substantially identical" (and therefore a candidate for deletion by CSD G4), reading both the previous deletion discussion and this article suggests to me that the same notability concerns remain. Kife 10:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi there. I am not used to making articles about living people but I remember the content of the last one. There were no references, no links (internal or external) and no obvious notable facts. There was also doubt as to whether or not the actor existed which, considering his entry at the British Film Institute and Hollywood.com (and the IMDb), is a bit silly. The doubt as to his existence was the reason it was deleted. It was seen as a hoax for some reason. Weird. However, if the article still doesn't satisfy, you can delete it but since it is crucially different from the first and since the existence of the actor is beyond doubt, and since his parts were quite sizable, I think it would be a mistake. His first film was a multi award winning one and the actor played the star's older brother. TheBourtreehillian (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To help inform the discussion, Morton's IMDB entry is here. --Kife 11:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Kife 14:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A grand total of three roles, only one of which may be just barely on the far horizon of notability (like the scene where Omar Sharif makes his first appearance in Lawrence of Arabia). Unlike Sharif however, Morton doesn't get any nearer. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded it but the author disputed; would have speedied as a recreaction if I'd known. --kingboyk (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guy was a local in Scotland and I thought I knew enough about him to make an article. As I say, delete it if the article doesn't satisfy. Mind you, the three role comment (witty though it is) is quite silly. I could name a number of actors who had similarly low amounts of roles (James Dean, for example, did exactly three feature films). But of course Morton isn't by any stretch of the imagination as notable as dean. It's just a flawed reason for deletion. I really don't mind what you do. I am more interested in local history articles anyway. Do what you will. I really don't mind. TheBourtreehillian (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- additional: I was looking at the other actors on the "for deletion" list and it seems to be comprised of extras and bit-parts in small films. Considering that Silent Scream won a best film award, a BAFTA, a golden Bear, a silver bear and was premiered in Berlin, (he is also recorded in the British Film Institute - which is run privately and cannot be accessed or altered by the actors themselves) I really can't see how he fits in here. As I say, I don't mind the short article being deleted (didn't put much work into it - like the history articles) but surely there has to be better grounds. My cousin has his autograph. You don't ask low-notables and extras for autographs. TheBourtreehillian (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply (after repeated edit conflict) While I understand the point that the number of roles isn't in itself an indicator of how notable an actor is, I believe Clarityfiend's comment was intended to convey that the nature of Morton's three roles is a factor – I'm fairly sure there was and is no threat of an Oscar nomination, posthumous or otherwise. --Kife 21:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply That is surely another flawed reason though. There are hundreds of HUGE actors that never get an Oscar. I saw his film again a few years ago and his part recurred all the way through it. He played the big brother of the star. Don's (Morton's character) awful behaviour was the reason for Larry's (the star - played by Iain Glen) psychosis and therefore his jail-term. I don't know how to make him more notable. So just delete it. The movie won awards (best actor, best movie, best director) and so he surely can't simply be grouped with extras whose only claim to fame is appearing once in a bosnian soap. He shoots someone in the film and commits a serious robbery! He is also a member of the cast of a film already given an entry in wiki - Silent Scream (1990 film)TheBourtreehillian (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I haven't seen Silent Scream, so I have to go by what I can find. IMDb doesn't list him at all, and TCM has him far down the cast. Also, being in an award-winning film does not guarantee notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply IMDb doesn't list him?? Yes it does. Morton IMDb and he is in the cast list of Silent Scream on IMdb too. Good grief, you should as wikipedians, click the references. Having a sizable part in an award winning film doesn't guarantee notability?? Oh well. I find that weird. But oh well. TheBourtreehillian (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Question Surely it's Alexander Morton, Jamie's (AJ Morton's) father, who has the "sizable" part? Jamie Morton played the young Don Winters; Alexander Morton plays the adult Don Winters (Jamie was only 10 at the time). --Kife 10:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ReplyOk I understand the confusion. No, Jamie (or AJ or what ever he calls himself how) had a considerably bigger part in the film. I think his father only appears one or twice and he doesn't say much. I never even knew his dad was in it. I understand the confusion though. You would think it would be the other way round. But Jamie's part is considerably bigger. He commits crimes, swears a lot, shoots someone, breaks into a building, touches up classical naked statues (lol) and falls in a river. He has more lines and more screen time than his father did. He was also on the official poster. His father wasn't. TheBourtreehillian (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, after considering what's been said in the discussion so far, I'm still not seeing a significant body of work here. Moreover, there's the difficulty of not being able to verify the biography from reliable and independent sources, given that much of it seems unsourced or sourced from the likes of IMDB. I did, however, find the website of an "A J Morton" who describes himself as "former child actor" who "gave up his career at the age of 17 after several small parts in theatre, TV and film, to study history"; if this is, indeed, the real AJ Morton, he doesn't appear to think his former career that significant. Perhaps he'll be a notable historian at some point, but that's in the future. --Kife 13:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply That is the best reason I have heard. Delete away! :) TheBourtreehillian (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not verifiable. The biography in IMDB notes "IMDb Mini Biography By: Jennifer Morton", who could be a relative, which makes it more questionable. Truthanado (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply WHOA! I never knew IMDb was made by users!! I won't trust that again. However, Morton is also recorded in the Archives of the British Film Institute and they DON'T include non-notables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBourtreehillian (talk • contribs) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's the reason IMDB is not generally treated as a reliable source. However, the BFI database, while very useful, has no brief to only include notable individuals – which is why, for example, there's an entry for Cleo Mason (Angel #3 in Forest of the Damned), among other people with only non-speaking or minor parts. --Kife 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I didn't realise that about the BFI. However, Jamie's role was neither non-speaking or a minor part. The older brother was instrumental in sending the star (Iain Glen) to jail. I also thought that being trained by Robert Carlyle in the raindog theatre company and being a notable character in Carlyle's debut film lended biographical notability. I really don't see the similarity with Morton and glorified extras. Cleo made one thing and didn't even have a character name. Morton made three and was notable in each. Perhaps if I included a description (from memory) of what exactly Morton did in Silent Scream it would help you decide what to do. No-one here so far has said they have seen the film, so all assertions of a non-notability-role are based on opinion and not facts. TheBourtreehillian (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I think it would perhaps be useful for you to review some guidelines on notability. An association with a notable individual (which Carlyle clearly is) doesn't necessarily mean that notability rubs off. What's needed is a demonstration that Morton has received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (see my comment above). As far as I've been able to ascertain, reviews of Silent Scream, for example, focus on the work of Iain Glenn or the director. James Dean of the three roles has had a ton of material written about him and his short career – what is there on Jamie Morton in that line? --Kife 13:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems the entire idea of even considering to include this person is hinging on one movie role where it appears he plays a very minor character. Constantly pointing to the importance of this movie (which isn't exactly Star Wars or Casablanca, by the way) doesn't go very far in the way of his notability. Also, there are other verifiability issues.Gwynand (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish someone else here had seen it. His role isn't minor, as I have said (shoots guns, commits robberies, breaking and entering, falls in river, touches up statues, gets in a fight). However, I was already convinced by the previous message. Secondary sources are thin on the ground (though I notice Iain Glen's own website mentions Morton) and I think, after looking at the Notability guidelines, that the article should be deleted. I find it odd that a notable character in an award winning film isn't himself notable. But them's the rules so delete away. TheBourtreehillian (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search didn't turn up anything outstanding, and as was pointed out above, IMDB is also created by users (one who in this case seems to have a conflict of interest), so it shouldn't be considered a primary source. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogads[edit]

I feel that this article on an organisation fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There is insignificant and unsubstantive coverage from secondary sources and no indication of importance/significance. Of the 4 references, numbers 1 & 2 are primary sources from the organisation itself, 3 is a passing reference in an article about a customer in a reliable secondary source, 4 is a primary source from a customer. Since I assume that this will be controversial I have decided on WP:Afd rather than Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7. All substantive article editors will be alerted to this. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've just realised that BlogAds (different capitalisation) was speedily deleted on 1 March 2007 citing "A7 inc" (see [27]) and Blogads was speedily deleted on 15 July 2007 citing "Delete per CSD A7: no assertion of importance or significance of the subject. " - see deletion log entry. I'm happy for an admin to cancel this Afd, speedy delete and WP:SALT both articles. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)a[reply]

Update: Hello John. I came across the entry a few days ago trying to get more info on what Blogads did. It was horrendous. I checked the discussion page, and someone seemed to agree: "Not that i'm going to do anything about it but this is the worst article I've ever seen on WIkipedia. It is worthless, and I would suggest it for deletion if I knew how to." The article was all fluff, poorly organized, didn't provide any concrete info; it sounded like a poorly-written press release. I tried to do a quick overhaul and took information from their website and basic NYTimes and Google searches as references. I removed other refences as since they were employed in a manner that seemed to simply provide conjectural support to Blogads importance, which, as it turns out, was not conjectural. However, after the deletion flag was raised, I reexamined these references from major publications (Business Week, Wall Street Journal), and did a more extensive search, yielding additional articles from The New York Times and Chicago Tribune. As it's been covered fairly frequently, and with varying degrees of depth (the Business Week and Chicago Tribune articles go fairly in depth and provide interviews with Henry Copeland), all establishing its continued viability and importance to Netroots, Blog Networks, Blog Advertising, etc, I feel that it certainly fits qualifications for notability as defined herein: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I think the new revision asserts its significance on the subject and fixes the problem of past versions, ie them being full of marketing speak and press-release-like jargon without a solid case for significance. -Bob 11:36 EST, 10 January 2008. Sorry, just read the timestamping info. I'll try again today: 38.98.97.90 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Bob[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after recent cleanup, there appear to be sufficient sources to qualify for WP:WEB and/or WP:CORP. JavaTenor (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been sufficiently improved demonstrating the notability of the company. --Dhartung | Talk 09:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm treating this as an uncontested proposed deletion since nobody has contested deletion.-Wafulz (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protodermis[edit]

original research essay about non-notable "substance" from the bioncle universe. No real world context and only sources are primary sources. Ridernyc (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google search suggests that the word describes the cells that act as an epidermis (skin) of embryonic plant tissues (seed parts).--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, since there are no rejections here, I assume that the consensus is delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Activism[edit]

I prodded this article a while ago for lack of notability assertion of this neologism. While the prod was contested, not much has been done to address that concern. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn.-Wafulz (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism and the rhetoric of unification[edit]

A brief essay apparently summarizing the views of one researcher on a somewhat inscrutable topic. Noted for its problematic nature some two years ago, but never really fixed.<eleland/talkedits> 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. The problems appear to be the result of a zealous cleanup effort; the topic itself is notable, and sufficient independent sources exist to show this. The article will of course need to be improved but we don't have a deadline. <eleland/talkedits> 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be non-notable as a topic, but I have a feeling that book these ideas are from is notable. (Too lazy to do the research at the moment, but I'd be surprised someone would write an article like this if it wasn't being taught in a college class somewhere.) Assuming this is true, I would move this article to The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle, which should be framed as an article about the book. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I just realized all of those citations aren't reprintings, they're just multiple journal articles of the same name. At this point I'll just remain neutral. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry, but a nominator should provide some reason to delete the article. "Problematic nature" is not a reason for deletion. "Views of one researcher" is also not a reason. Biophys (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That there are no sources independent of that one researcher is a reason for deletion; WP:NOTE generally prefers multiple sources, and requires sources independent of the subject. <eleland/talkedits> 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are six sources in the article written by three different people. Hence it satisfies notability criteria. This is not to say that article is great. It is not, but I just do not see a serious reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Girard source has nothing to say on the subject: the book doesn't even contain the words "fasicst" or "fascism". The Wink source does mention fascism twice, but trivially, and with no mention of unification. All the others are by K. Burke. <eleland/talkedits> 02:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle", and rewrite as a proper encyclopedic article on the essay. Right now it has the character of a summary or an essay about the essay. This is an important work by Burke and has been referenced by many other writers. (Calliopejen1 was correct in xer first comment. The title of our article is unique, and not an alternate title to the essay.) --Dhartung | Talk 10:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Discussing only one point of view makes it inherently POV. Beyond that, this subject/theory is not notable (for lack of a better word); this topic would be best treated in the article Fascism as one of several interpretations/opinions about the subject. However, per Dhartung, if the essay itself can be demonstrated to have notability, I wouldn't mind seeing it moved there and discussed as s/he lays out. Dylan (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research from a biased perspective which fails to fully address its subject. A real article on fascist unification rhetoric would be significantly longer, and have more sources. Argyriou (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Perhaps it could be retitled, but this is a very important concept used in rhetorical studies and communication studies of war in academia. Burke's 1939 article on this topic is considered a landmark essay in the field, and the concept as outlined by Burke has been instrumental to many scholars in understanding Hitler specifically or in war more generally. csloat (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the topic or the essay may be notable, but this article fails to prove that. this version of the article may have been worth keeping, except that Cberlet say fit to hack off three-quarters of the article for lack of references, and nobody's bothered doing anything with it since May 2007. The second paragraph is useful, but the article needs a proper introduction, and the first paragraph isn't it. The third paragraph, about "commercial use", is worthless. For that matter, the article about Kevin Burke doesn't mention this essay nor the books it's appeared in. Argyriou (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good argument for fixing the article, not for deletion. And for adding this material to the Burke article. I came upon this article when I was researching Burke; now that it's on my list, I'll certainly try to help improve the situation. I also would agree that it should be renamed to something like Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle" rather than this title; if it survives deletion that should be the next step. csloat (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

evidence[edit]

Just for the record, I looked at EBSCOHost's Communication and Mass Media Index. I limited my search only to peer-reviewed articles that cited Burke's essay "The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle." This limited search still netted 58 peer-reviewed essays (you can find more if you look in other index headings; Burke is often cited in sociology and political science as well as communication scholarship). I include a list of the first ten just so you can get a sense of the breadth of influence this thesis has had. Also, a google scholar search for mention in books finds you more hits.:

"Telling it like it is": Jim Pankiw and Politics of Racism. Rhetor. Journal of the Canadian Society for the Study of Rhetoric, 2007, p1-23, 23p; (AN 27747329)
The Populist Chameleon: The People's Party, Huey Long, George Wallace, and the Populist Argumentative Frame. By: Lee, Michael J.. Quarterly Journal of Speech, Nov2006, Vol. 92 Issue 4, p355-378, 24p; DOI: 10.1080/00335630601080385; (AN 24875979)
To Execute Capital Punishment: The Mortification and Scapegoating of Illinois Governor George Ryan. By: Moore, Mark P.. Western Journal of Communication, Oct2006, Vol. 70 Issue 4, p311-330, 20p; DOI: 10.1080/10570310600992129; (AN 23234017)
Finding Comedy in Theology: A Hopeful Supplement to Kenneth Burke's Logology. By: Maddux, Kristy. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 2006, Vol. 39 Issue 3, p208-232, 25p; (AN 22497430)
GUEST EDITORIAL: A RESPONSE TO PATRICK MOORE'S "QUESTIONING THE MOTIVES OF TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION AND RHETORIC: STEVEN KATZ'S 'ETHIC OF EXPEDIENCY'". By: KATZ, STEVEN B.. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 2006, Vol. 36 Issue 1, p1-8, 8p; (AN 20338972)
"YOU KNOW WHERE I STAND": MORAL FRAMING OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM AND THE IRAQ WAR IN THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. By: Spielvogel, Christian. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Winter2005, Vol. 8 Issue 4, p549-569, 21p; (AN 19628709)
DEMOCRACY, DEMAGOGUERY, AND CRITICAL RHETORIC. By: Roberts-Miller, Patricia. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Fall2005, Vol. 8 Issue 3, p459-476, 18p; (AN 18536135)
The politics of victimage:. By: Blain, Michael. Critical Discourse Studies, Apr2005, Vol. 2 Issue 1, p31-50, 20p; DOI: 10.1080/17405900500052168; (AN 16669758)
Reading the Riot Act: Rhetoric, Psychology, and Counter-Revolutionary Discourse in Shays's Rebellion, 1786–1787. By: Engels, Jeremy. Quarterly Journal of Speech, Feb2005, Vol. 91 Issue 1, p63-88, 26p; DOI: 10.1080/00335630500157532; (AN 17941694)
Theodore Herzl's The Jewish State: Prophetic Rhetoric in the Service of Political Objectives. By: Kiewe, Amos. Journal of Communication & Religion, Sep2003, Vol. 26 Issue 2, p208-239, 32p; (AN 14350131) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commodore Sloat (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F. B. Vickers[edit]

Started by User:Gordouxx; prematurely speedy-delete-tagged early in development; speedy tag removed by User:Jayron32: "deny speedy request. Article needs a lot of help, but there is enough context here to see that this is an award-winning australian writer. If deletion is sought, try AFD."; later blanked by its author; better get various opinions on it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An Australian novelist with at least 26 published works to his name. Nick mallory (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google search reveals thousands of hits, although some refer to aircraft, a fair number referred to the novelist. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 13:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the Auslit reference provided in the article - published Australian author meets notability guidelines. A great pity that a contributer was put off with gratuitous premature speedy-delete tags--Matilda ^talk 06:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify specifically against the notability guidelines at WP:Bio, for Creative professionals (which includes authors), he meets represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries - several of his works are in may Australian libraries (see the refs now in the article which have links to the Library collections) - but several are in 36 libraries across Australia - University and State libraries. He was commended in several literary award competitions (though didn't win). He was made a life member of the Dederation of Australian Writers in WA as he had been president of that organisation (not quite sure state or national level)[28] - ie recognised by his peers. He also has a reference library of WA books named in his honour. [29]. Perhaps he is marginal for notability - ie not Henry Lawson - but I believe still meets our criteria adequately and more notable than some. The issue is a lot to do with sources on the net - they do not cover mid twentieth century writers effectively. --Matilda ^talk 04:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm the one whose speedy-delete tag was supposedly "premature," but the article at the time clearly met speedy-delete criteria for no-context, and I stand by my assessment. While that is not the case now, I still don't think the subject meets notability requirements. A Google search for "F. B. Vickers" (in quotation marks to find the exact phrase) turns up very few hits. Most instead seem to refer to Lawrence Vickers, a fullback in the NFL — hence, FB Vickers. I'm unable to readily verify the claim regarding the number of published books. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pity this editor didn't look at the links that were provided in the article (at the time he !voted) - they would have verified the number of books published for example. Similarly a goodle search of F B Vickers shows the first few hits clearly relating to the author. Given the internet focusses on recent topics, an author who died in 1985 is unlikely to have much of an internet presence - this should be no comment on his notability.--Matilda ^talk 20:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I did attempt to look at the links provided. However, the links provided did not go directly to the information about this particular author when I checked. As I clearly stated above, I did a Google search on the name "F. B. Vickers" — with the name enclosed in quotes, as it should properly be to search for the name and to cut down on spurious results — and aside from the Wikipedia article and this very AfD discussion, little else came up about the subject in the first few pages. I am also a bit leery of sources cited for which the verifying information is only available by subscription. While it appears that Vickers did publish several works, there still seems to be this lack of underlying confirmation that he was actually a notable write of Australian literature. While the Morning Herald prizes are a plus, an honourable mention and a joint third place seem to still be lacking. I suspect I'm fighting a losing cause here, and it may be just as well, but this still comes across as an author who sits on the cusp of notability, but isn't quite there. As you might be able to discern, I don't have especially strong feelings on this, but just this nagging suspicion that something isn't quite as it should be. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep though this author doesn't seem notable on any other criteria of WP:BIO for creative professionals (the award was minor), as pointed out above by Matilda his novels may be part of the collections of internationally significant libraries - a search on WorldCat shows that his novel Without map or compass is part of the collection of the Yale University Library, The New York Public Library, the Library of Congress, and others. Marontia (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin khoh[edit]

Possibly non-notable, or not notable enough for an article. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not-notable to have an article here. Dekisugi (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mkeranat (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is customary to provide some reasoning when making a comment on an AfD discussion. See WP:JUSTAVOTE. cab (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 13 English GHits for "Benjamin Khoh"; 5 for his blogname "the benji boy"; none in Chinese for "许恩志". Safe to conclude that no reliable, independent sources exist about him. Not to be confused with a different blogger Benjamin Koh [30]. cab (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.-Wafulz (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Village Corner[edit]

Delete article about non-notable little corner shop. Reads like an ad. }} Doczilla (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Delete: non-notable --Revanche (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Corey Delaney. The result of this discussion was "delete", but is hidden from view for privacy reasons. The closing statement was:

The result was expedited delete due to a clear consensus that this does not meet the encyclopedic standard for inclusion related to people notable for one event, and the fact that care for the subject must be considered (and hence this decision should be made as soon as consensus is clear). Daniel (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fury uk[edit]

Self-promotion, original research, and probably non-notable band. Jfire (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable group. tomasz. 10:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Simple searches yield nothing. Metal Head (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Investigative auditing[edit]

Unsourced neologism apparently invented by this article's first editor. (Compare username with the name cited in the last paragraph.) Only 309 Google hits, the vast majority of them related to the editor's firm. Article was prodded but prod was removed by another single-purpose account. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a rather vague and promotional sounding article, likely devised to promote a business using this term. Suggest redirect to forensic accounting, which would appear to be a more standard and well accepted name for a similar subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article lacks reliable sources to show usage. We should not be introducing a new term in Wikipedia that is not widely used elsewhere, per Wikipedia: Avoid neologisms. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Surely all auditing is investigative. Isn't that the whole point of it? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 08:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - built for advert purposes. --Pearrari (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, at least until notability is asserted. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotstown Primary School[edit]

Unreferenced article about a school that does not establish the notability of it, written like an advertisement. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete does not assert notability (unless "it is one of the best primary schools in the Bridge of Don" counts) and does not appear likely to be notable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not clear to me (and others may disagree with me) that schools count as "organizations" for the purposes of WP:CSD A7. - Revolving Bugbear 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - schools are explicitly exempted from CSD A7. TerriersFan (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - thank you for pointing that out. I've changed my vote to a standard delete. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, conflict of interest, non-notable. Should it turn out that the school is notable, this article is so poorly written that it would be better to start from scratch. Aipzith (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the factual content to Bridge of Don. Dump the POV. • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to Bridge of Don - Does not appear notable enough for its own article, so simple and cheap re-direct is appropriate. I decline to speedy delete the article - school article deletions are controversial, so it is better to let the AFD run through. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Camaron. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bridge of Don - this could have been done without an AfD. TerriersFan (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Article has been put up for deletion? Why? I have read the comments and the article itself and believed it was very accurate. I attended Scotstown Primary School for 7 years before being transfered to Bridge of Don Academy. For the people who wrote the comments and asked for it to be deleted, I think it is unfair to write such comments as you have if you have not experiance the place yourself. So, have any of the authors of the 'deletion' articles ever been to Scotstown Primary School or the Bridge of Don or even Aberdeen? If you have you can write such comments if not I think you should retract you comment until you have seen it yourself. If this article is so bad you should write one your self! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.201.202.130 (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WYWIWYT[edit]

Seems to be a nonnotable neologism, prod was removed by original author. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although this is more in WP:NFT than WP:NEO territory. --Dhartung | Talk 10:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete for two reasons: 1) appears to be advertising a certain website, and 2) per WP:NFT. M1N (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. keeps has no policy based reason Secret ^account 02:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Gedalia Zweig[edit]

This young rabbi does not meet the threshold for notability of such people. He is one of hundreds of Aish HaTorah rabbis no different to similar Chabad rabbis who work as outreach rabbis to non-Orthodox Jews who fail all the criteria required in WP:BIO and WP:BLP. This article reads like a resume and is a violation of WP:NOT#ADVERTISING; WP:NOT#MYSPACE; WP:NOT#WEBHOST and more. Aish HaTorah has it's own multiple websites and Wikipedia is not aish.com. True, the article says he published a book last year (2007) but it is not well known and too early to know if it's of any long-term value or importance. IZAK (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, not yet notable enough. Lawrence Cohen 07:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons stated by nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a few sources for this rabbi. On his role at The Kiever Synagogue [31]. An article about a speech on his book Living Kaddish located at the Jewish Journal, at [32]. Info about his latest book at, [33]. Also, concerning his musical group - [34]. Culturalrevival (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Acknowledging an inclusionist argument for a keep could be made, the difficulty with these sources in terms of WP:BIO is that (a) the first source only describes typical activities for a synagogue rabbi with no biographical content or notability assertion, and (b) the sources on the book and music groups are simple announcements and similar rather than independent reviews that would demonstrate notability. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I recently cleaned up the page and added some new sources. I agree with the above that an inculsionist arguement could be made, but there might be other sources out there yet on one of these specifically. Culturalrevival (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable rabbi... also an author and musician. Culturalrevival (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep a rabbi who authored a book and is active in aish and is a musician as well, seems to me notable enough for inclusion in the worlds biggest free and open encyclopedia. Especially now that some users have sourced the article very professionally, thanks to them for saving it--יודל (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per IZAK, Lawrence, etc. Avi (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for all the reasons stated by Yidisheryid, the article is cleaned up and the rabbi is looks quite notable--Gregorykay (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notable Rabbi, Musician, and Author... looks quite notable to me. What else does Wikipedia require?--TooJewish (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC) — TooJewish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Hmmm, and in all probability a sockpuppet. IZAK (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was> Speedily deleted - creator's request. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUI Simple Unique IDs[edit]

~~Delete~~ article is an in-depth description of a non-notable software software package written by the article creator. Apart from a lack of notability, the article has WP:COI and WP:OWN issues. Mayalld (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G7 - Author and sole contributor requested deletion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/SUI Simple Unique IDs Mayalld (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Mayall,
I am not the creator of the software, and have no pecurinary interest in it. I did originate on the W3.org, and Amigaworld and elsewhere where I discussed the problem of having real unique identities available for net publications (over four years), but it is the work of a comapny (Lestec). I suggested to them the wiki as a resource for the service and volunteered to write it.
I did produce the images, and I did supply them to Lestec to use. I am not paid by that company, or have any holdings in it.
The fact is that wikipedia references, and references well a number of established identity systems, all having problems by their use of randomisied factors. This system is new, but also working at the moment. I am editing the wiki as support is be being fianlisied.
As for it being "non-notable", it is new and hence of little note - it would be a mistake however to conclude that it is without importance. It does exist, it is not speculative, it has immediate use that does not exist otherwise. Anyone, especially a computer user, who needs a ID would naturally first search the wikiepedia. I believe it is in the right place and service for readers for wikipedia.
For instance: Epub the new e-book standard mandates a unique ID for all publications (there are tens of thousands of such works that will use Epub format), unfortinately there is not an ID system that allows epublishers (especially small epublishers) to get actually unique IDs (indeed this is conceded in the IDEF documents on Epub which suggests "making them up" - which is not viable).
The defense of the article is simple, it has a place amongst the other systems covered already by the wikipedia.
PS. I should add that Les Moull the proprietor of Lestec and the creator of SUI, is a friend of long standing and has taken time out to produce this free software for the public good. He does have plans for his own commercial products using it, but the specifications are completely open and in the public domain - third party developers, commercial or others, are welcome to produce their own software and scripts and the Wiki has been designed for their use as well.
I am a high school teacher with a deep interest in literature in electronic form, not a software provider. A system of unique identity, that is relaible and does not rely on "big number randomisation" is essential - to my best knowledge SUI is the only system available to non-programmers, and possibly the only one that provides unique codes that are actually unique rather than just unlikely to be repeated.
--GregorySchofield (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've come to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. Wikipedia is not a free web host for hosting primary documentation for whatever you please, nor is it a resource for conducting the business of software development. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Per our content policy, things only belong here after they have been documented outside Wikipedia, by reliable sources that are independent of a novel idea's creators/inventors. Please read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Notability. The place for writing and publishing your own primary documentation of your novel idea, and organizing software development, is your own web site. (We know that you have one. You hyperlinked to it in the article.) Your idea only warrants an article here after it has been acknowledged by the world at large, and had proper documentation written and published about it by other people independent of you. Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The text given does not contain any indications of notability for this business or software package per WP:CORP. The text also seems fairly promotional in tone, and contains instructional material as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gregory Schofield asserts above that he is NOT the creator of this software. At the time the AfD was started, the article that he had created and edited stated that he WAS co-creator of the software. Indeed the claim was only removed from the article diff half an hour AFTER the asserion here that he was not the creator of the software. Mayalld (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Yates[edit]

No claim of notability. Makes some hint at being a notable coach, but apparently never coached at a pro level. Jfire (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity piece that fails WP:BIO just for starters, and doesn't even attempt to provide any sources. Teleomatic (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: vanity piece. --Revanche (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result:Article deleted by User:MZMcBride --JForget 01:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ren Seeks Help[edit]

Does not meet the notability guidelines for TV episodes. Consists only of a plot summary, quotes, non-free images, and/or an infobox. DJBullfish (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article requires clean-up not deletion. At worst we can redirect to List of episodes of The Ren and Stimpy Show. - See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Scooter for Yaksmas for discussion of potential source material. Catchpole (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CovertAction Quarterly[edit]

Minor publication, no established evidence of notability. John Nevard (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Philip Agee. He is definitely notable but I don't know that this periodical is. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant publication in the history of the CIA and modern US intelligence. Its publication and others like it led to the exposure of hundreds of CIA operatives. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/obituaries/10agee.html for more context. Gamaliel (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's an article about Agee. If Aldrich Ames had published a newsletter which serious sources don't consider, we'd mention it briefly in his article too. John Nevard (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's an article about Agee. In my comment I clearly noted that I provided the link for context and never claimed it was an article about the magazine. Gamaliel (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any evidence that links the publication of CIA officer's identities to the publication of the journal itself with the precipitation of the passing of the bill? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Times article, such publications did lead to the passage of the bill. Gamaliel (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep historically notable periodical. Google Books gives me 113 references, most of which (on first glance) appear to be references in serious works, including several of the Project Censored reports, to articles published in CAQ. bikeable (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gamaliel and bikeable. The publication has a rather long history and is significant beyond the connection with Agee. Pigman☿ 06:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't believe I've given, for all practical purposes, WP:ILIKEIT as a reason to keep above. (facepalm) I must be tired. Pigman☿ 06:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You didn't, by my reading. You spoke to the significance of the topic. --Dhartung | Talk 10:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It just seemed that way to me at the time because I didn't actually give additional sources to support my opinion. (Hey, there's nothing wrong with agreeing with people who have already done research on the AfD.) Also, I was speaking from my familiarity with the publication (I've read it on occasion) so the opinion seemed (to me) based on my feelings rather than more objective and encyclopedic sources. I'm not totally dumb. I think. Pigman☿ 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the above it appears that sources which document notability per WP standards do exist. Instead of deleting the article it should be tagged as lacking references and an effort should be launched to procure these sources. If this isn't done, then. we should consider deleting the article. __meco (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Small doesn't mean non-notable. This was/is a lever that had effects greater than its circulation numbers alone would suggest. --Dhartung | Talk 10:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agee ceased to be a major force at CAQ at least 15 years ago. The publication has continued, and continues to be notable, independent of him. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect, merge as needed. Pastordavid (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering the Dead[edit]

According to the article this record was limited to 500 copies. The article makes no mention of the record doing anything like hitting, charting, affecting the course of music, or anything else notable. I doubt the band itself is notable, but this album certainly isn't. My prod tag was removed without comment. Midwest Peace (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the content of this article can be merged/redirected to that of the band that produced it. Catchpole (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with band article. --Revanche (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 02:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daigacon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Doesn't have the notability or attendance numbers to justify inclusion - by a wide stretch. Was previously voted "Deleted" by consensus but still remains somehow. DJBullfish (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and per other 2 noms. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the logs, this article has been deleted six times previously for approximately the same reason it has been nominated again. On 7 March 2007, it was restored with the comment, ”This convention occured. No reason to keep deleted.” —Travis ^talk 04:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because something occurs doesn't mean it's inclusion is justified. And we've been through this deletion nomination before - it's not significant for inclusion. The convention, to date, just [b]isn't[/b] noteworthy enough for inclusion. DJBullfish (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, it was restored after the first AfD without going through WP:DRV. --Farix (Talk) 04:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline - let's get the timeline right here...
- 17:16, 1 December 2006 - article created by User:Silentsam84
- 17:21, 1 December 2006 - article deleted (A7 - no notability asserted)
- 17:27, 1 December 2006 - article recreated by User:Silentsam84 (no change)
- 17:30, 1 December 2006 - article deleted ("still does not assert notability")
- 20:13, 1 December 2006 - article recreated by User:Silentsam84 (slightly different)
- 15:49, 13 January 2007 - nominated for deletion (see 1st AfD)
- 05:49, 18 January 2007 - article deleted following the AfD
- 18:24, 1 February 2007 - article recreated by User:Silentsam84
- 01:47, 2 February 2007 article deleted (G4 - repost)
- 07:50, 22 February 2007 article recreated by User:Necrolotu
- 12:17, 22 February 2007 article deleted (G4 - repost)
- 22:49, 22 February 2007 article recreated by User:Silentsam84
- 23:06, 22 February 2007 - page blanked by User:Silentsam84
- 01:52, 23 February 2007 article deleted (G4 - repost)
- 01:57, 23 February 2007 - User:Silentsam84 blocked
- 2-4 March 2007 - Daigacon convention takes place
- 23:31, 7 March 2007 - page history restored by User:The Cunctator ("This convention occured. No reason to keep deleted")
- 22:45, 7 March 2007 - article turned from db-blank to old content by User:The Cunctator
- 22:50, 7 March 2007 - User:Silentsam84 unblocked by User:The Cunctator ("Newbie who posted reasonable request to unblock-en-l")
- 19:15, 8 March 2007 - 2nd AfD nomination (see here)
- 00:30, 17 March 2007 - kept following AfD (no consensus)
- March 2007 to January 2008 - During that 2nd AfD, and between then and now, various edits have changed the article, and there have been many months to see if the article can grow any further, or be improved.
- 03:37, 15 January 2008 - nominated for deletion a third time (that's this discussion, though my fixing of the numbering means the edit summary here links to the 2nd discussion, something I partially addresses using a null edit two edits later to provide the correct link)

What this all means, I'm not entirely sure. But just thought I'd make clear that some of the debates took place before the event took place. The recreation was legitimate, and the resulting AfD was needed. What this AfD is, is a continuation of the no consensus debate from March 2007. The previous deletions, though justified, shouldn't really impact this debate. Carcharoth (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally protested The Cunctator's restoration of the article because it was completely out of process and didn't go to WP:DRV.[35] If there were enough reliable third party sources to pass the notability guidelines, then the article should have been recreated using those sources, but it should not have been restored. Also the original reason for deleting the convention wasn't just because it hadn't happened, but that its notability could not be predicted either. --Farix (Talk) 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal, really. On some days DRV would agree that a relist at AfD is needed, and on some days DRV would effectively have the AfD debate there (at DRV) instead. What is happening is that we are having the AfD debate here, and it is quite possible that the 'no consensus' from last time will become 'delete'. What you could have done last time is take the undeletion to DRV, instead of having a second AfD, but the same argument applies. My view is that it is reasonable to reassess the notability after the event has taken place, and that can happen either at DRV or AfD. Insisting on process doesn't help anyone, least of all the article itself. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An attendance of 257 people is pretty much the definition of non-notable. No guests of importance, either. Doceirias (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We base the notability of a convention on if it can pass WP:NOTE or WP:ORG. We don't base it off on the size of the attendance.

Comment and being tiny and insignificant fails notability. Doceirias (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsubasacon only had 407 its first year and 227 during the second, but still received sufficient coverage during the first year to pass the notability guidelines. So attendance isn't a factor in determining notability. --Farix (Talk) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assess and possibly merge - what is needed here is to assess List of anime conventions and Anime convention, and to see whether this article fits in with the articles on more obviously notable anime conventions (see Anime convention#Largest North American anime conventions of 2007 and Anime convention#Largest European anime conventions of 2006 and 2007 (depending on whether attendance is a suitable metric to assess notability). If not, then delete, but if so, then merge to the list. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foccer[edit]

Seems to be WP:MADEUP, a WP:HOAX, or a WP:NEO VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems non-notable for it to have an article. More of made-up. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 03:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this mildly funny joke, quick search shows almost no sources, could find its root in how Americans can't understand David Beckham's accent, but I think the joke is more on Americans than David Beckham. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’d say that “mildly funny” is a generous description of the article. I’m not sure where Beckham fits in; is that a reference to the one goal he scored for Los Angeles this previous season? Anyway, this article is rubbish. —Travis ^talk 04:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of videos of him talking about soccer, but because Americans find it difficult to understand his English accent they hear it as "Foccer", with some comments ridiculing his accent. Although he scored a nice goal in an exhibition match as part of Galaxy against Sydney FC. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia not something made up in wherever yesterday. Qwghlm (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Howe (British Army officer)[edit]

The subject of the article is described as having been an officer in the French and Indian War and as being perhaps a relative of the Viscounts Howe. The former claim is insufficient to establish notability. The latter is asserted by an early 20th-century American genealogy and contradicted by contemporary and modern works on the British peerage. It seems very likely that Maj. Howe's connection to the viscounts is the result of wishful thinking among his latter-day descendants. Choess (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it could be proven that he was related to the viscounts, howe would that make him notable? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Muster out as we are not a genealogical directory and even though the person making the claim was notable and the purported relatives are notable, that does not make him notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not inherited --Revanche (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting songs[edit]

Article consists of song lyrics and does not comply with WP:NOT#LYRICS. AfD was suggested on Article Talk page and Scouting Project Page, with no objections JGHowes ^talk - 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#LYRICS. JJL (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and discussion on its talk page and in the Scouting Project. I have transwikied the content to ScoutWiki, so it is being kept somewhere and indeed in a more appropriate place. --Bduke (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the subject itself is notable if an article can be formed with no song lyrics included. matt91486 (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the information is now in a better place. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bduke, little information will be left anyway if the lyrics were removed.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete; "List of songs associated with Scouting" would be a better way to do this, listing notable songs. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is capable of improvement as I have just demonstrated by adding an omission which I immediately noticed: Kumbaya. The lyrics are not a decisive issue. As more songs are added, the lyrics can be reduced to the first verse or first line, which would be fair use. Likewise, the title of the article is not decisive as it can be readily renamed. It's the topic which is significant and this seems clearly notable. See Surmountable problem. Here's a long list of potential sources: Google books. And note that the Campfire Songs article is much worse. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. It's a disambiguation article, and in fairly good shape for one. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zana Dugolli[edit]

Contested PROD. Fictional character. No indication that the novel she appears in, or its author, are notable. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of real-world WP:N. JJL (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this meets notability. ― LADY GALAXY 15:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this were cut down a bit, the content would make a good plot summary for the very sparce Girl of Kosovo article. Given the number of times it shows up on librbary reading lists and curricula of reading about children in conflicts in just the first page of g-hits, it the book itself can probably pretty easily demonstrate its notablity. It's possible that this character can as well, given the children-in-conflicts connect, but better would be to merge this into the book's article and work on that. If, later, there's enough information, Zana can be split off again. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Speedy Keep criterion met. Tyrenius (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Wafer[edit]

Withdraw Jeremy Wafer now meets inclusion, sources to match. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as discernable, does not meet notability per wp:bio. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: his work is in the collection of the National Museum of African Art in Washington, DC. That should establish sufficient notability. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

somehow, having one of your works owned by a gallery doesn't seem to me to make an artist notable, I myself have an artwork owned by Australia's National Gallery, am I notable? no. for further info check out Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Wikipedia:Notability (people) does explicitly list this as one of the standards for establishing notability. Under creative professionals, "The person's work ... is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the fact that he only has 1 (one). -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has several works in the museum: [36]. As for whether you should have a wiki article yourself - based on a work in Australia's National Gallery, I say go for it ;)--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for "the fact that he only has 1", it was demonstrated to be false in this AfD, prior to you calling it a fact: four major museums, galleries, and libraries were listed. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is the subject of at least one book: ISBN 062027381X and a chapter in another: ISBN 1868729877. Also subject of several articles/reviews in art journals such as [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. In addition to the Smithsonian, you can see that he's in collections at The Library of Congress, The South African National Gallery, The Johannesburg Art Gallery. Tempting to say delete because he's an African artist we've never heard of, but we've got plenty of material here. --JayHenry (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well, if you add refs, this will begin to make a good article and then satisfy guidelines. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JayHenry. Easily exceeds notability standards. Someone could probably make a Good Article out of this with a trip to a library. (BTW, what, pray-tell, is a post-deletionist?) Zagalejo^^^ 07:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. All examples satisfy WP:BIO. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Work held in several national collections.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma (play)[edit]

Delete N/N play by a N/N writer. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Zinn is non-notable? Uncle G (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highly, lul. but do we really need an article for this play? there is already a more expansive plot summary in Zinn's own page. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the author is clearly notable. There are also sources to provide reliable and verifiable information about the play. I've added two such sources, and expanded the synopsis to refer to the actual Emma Goldman, upon whose life the play is based. There's probably more out there, but this is, I think, a servicable stub, and should be kept. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could easily incorporate this into Zimm's article, additions would amount to probably no more than 100 characters. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you're suggesting is a merge, which does not require deletion tools. (Though I think an independent article is justified here.) Zagalejo^^^ 07:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there seem to be just enough sources for an article per WP:BK. If there is a more expansive plot summary in another article, that suggests that the text is in the wrong article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure per Wikipedia:Speedy keep: "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion.") --Iamunknown 03:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Muncher[edit]

Non-notable game-related article and it doesn't cite any sources. It is also not wikified as well and not written like an encyclopedia. NHRHS2010 talk 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article, when AFDed, was in a state of vandalism. I have now reverted it to its prior state (with the AFD template added on). Metros (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Could someone please close this AfD? NHRHS2010 talk 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I have been watching this debate (at the request of one of the supporters) for several days. A clear consensus that the article does not adequately meet WP:NN has emerged and no further useful additions have been made to the article to change the mind of editors commenting at this AfD.--VS ^talk 20:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Beard[edit]

Biography of a non-notable blogger. _→AzaToth 01:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Andy Beard is not notable, is like saying the earth is flat and there is no Jesus Christ. Igor Berger (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not do a convincing job of establishing his notability. Snthdiueoa (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of blanket deletion why not come around to help make the article notable per WikiPedia! Igor Berger (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any assertion of notability, and much of it reads like an ad for the guy. And Igor, please provide arguments to refute the deletion, instead of just attacking the nomination. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 04:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voyagerfan5761 I am not attacking anyone but questioning the statement that Andy Beard is a "non-notable blogger" Igor Berger (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you aren't presenting any evidence -- in the form of independent, third party sources -- to back up your case. That is what will decide the matter. Snthdiueoa (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down. We have 5 days, and I have notified other users. So no decision will be made today. But thank you for your concern. Igor Berger (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Andy Beard needs to be deleted, so is Social_network_aggregation and many other articles that have references and notability of social media industry social network paltforms like linkedIn, StumbleUpon, Blogcatalog, WebProNews, and other industry resources. Igor Berger (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources from which to derive biographical notability. The creator will please stop using arguments such as WP:ALLORNOTHING as well as canvassing for votes. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is canvassing fo votes. We are not a voting society but a consensus society. And letting people who understnad what is social media know about the AfD of Andy Beard is not canvassing for anything but asking for professional input. Yes it is WP:ALLORNOTHING you do not seem to acknowledge social media as notable, so I Wikipedia:IGNORE. Igor Berger (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this aticle gets deleted I will take this to WP:RFC and then to WP:RFAB. I hope we do not have to escalate this. Igor Berger (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is not WP:POINT but WP:POLICY Igor Berger (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being that this article may get deleted with the few who exibit WP:COI and there is WP:WEIGHT here, I a submiting User:Igorberger/Andy Beard which is a copy of the original, as evidence fo further arbitration. It is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS the way this article is being WP:AFD treated. Igor Berger (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you like to play acronym games. If you have any evidence that any editor in this discussion has a conflict of interest, please bring it to the table. It would be far more productive, however, should you choose to bring reliable sources for your assertions about the subject of the article being notable. --Dhartung | Talk 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not playing anything or am I WP:ABF. I asked for help with the article and all I am getting is delete delete 11:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs)
You are getting "delete delete" because you are doing nothing to source source your grandiose claims about the subject, e.g. "an icon of social media consultancy" (whatever the heck that means). --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost all the sources are blog posts or non-independent pages created by the subject himself. A Google News search suggests that he is occasionally mentioned in reliable sources but it's not clear that there is enough information in them about him to justify having an article about him per WP:BIO. By the way, if this article gets deleted the proper method of appeal would be to WP:DRV, not to WP:RFC or WP:RFAB. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Metropolitan90 thank you for your objective opinion and fair adjudication! Igor Berger (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being that Andy Beard is an Icon in Social media consultancy, not "a non-notable blogger" as User:AzaToth put it, this article requires some detailed examination before following WikiPedia guidelines for WP:AFD Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Beard is not WP:BIO but Self-organization. Igor Berger (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What has Self-organization to do with Andy Beard? WP:BIO is a policy about notability of people being on wikipedia. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x2) Pardon me, but, um, what? The article is a biography, isn't it? Exactly the point I was going to make, Tulkolahten. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 08:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay WP:COOL Igor Berger (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sense. --Dhartung | Talk 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Andy Beard is a institution for all of us. And if you cannot see it, delete the Fubar article. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For who? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. ~~Also I have some very large concerns with Igor Berger and a possible COI violation here.~~ Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you have COI concerns with me you will probably have the same conserns with many SEO and bloggers' WikiPedians including Danny Sullivan and Jehochman. Igor Berger (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look I wanted to publish an article, but you all seem to be ganging up on me with personal attack. Next you going to say I got money from Andy Beard..:) Please stay on focused on AfD or I will ask User:Durova to come here. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my comment about the COI and assuming good faith on Igor's part. Look, none of us here think this is personal towards you, it's just the people who have stated they think the article needs to be deleted bring up very valid points with regards to Mr. Beard's notability. If you can give reliable sources than can verify his notability, then by all means the article can be kept. We are trying to help here, and getting defensive and stating you'll "take this to WP:RFC and then to WP:RFAB" and also stating you'll have an admin come here as a vague threat doesn't help your cause. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my personal opinion, Andy Beard is borderline notable by Wikipedia standards. However, this article needs work. I suggest userification. If and when the article is fixed, it can be moved back to main space. For the record, it is my belief that Igor berger has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject. I have not seen any evidence of WP:COI. Remember, don't bite the newbies. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I must admit I found calling COI a bit inappropriate -- it does seem a bit dubious in terms of assuming good faith. However, Igor, getting all defensive isn't helping your cause. If you want the article to stay, you need to provide us with some good quality, reliable third party sources so that people can verify that the guy is notable. Snthdiueoa (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just did a quick search for sources and found a bunch of mentions and articles, but less than what I would have hoped for. Here's one from The Guardian: "The word farms of the web | Technology | The Guardian". www.guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2008-01-15.-- Jehochman ^Talk 19:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's an example of what you'd call a "trivial" mention. WP:N#_note-2 90.241.179.105 (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Borderline A7, very limited/no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS. Tevildo (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO, et al. BJ^Talk 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have probabally speedied this. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, I like to appologize for saying I will do this, and I will do that. Next I'll say that I would be the first one to admit that the article is lacking notability. But the man Andy Beard does not lack it. And are we not told follow the spirit of the law not the letter of the law when it comes to WikiPedia policy. This is a border line case, and the man through all his volunteer work in the blogger's community is notable. Even Matt Cutts chief Google software engineer mentions Andy on his semi official blog. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's okay. But you do need to give us some solid evidence to back up his claims to notability, not just mere assertions. Snthdiueoa (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Is this useful? http://www.semmys.org/ Andy Beard is one of the judges for the awards, including Barry Schwartz, Aaron Wall, Vanessa Fox, etc.. Seems notable to me! Igor Berger (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  No, unless you can show that the award/website itself is notable. We don't create articles for every winner of every award, if they're not notable themselves. Terraxos (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Andy Beard is one of the judges not a winner. Looks notable to me http://www.semmys.org/about/ http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/introducing-the-semmys/1026/ If it was not notable would Vanessa Fox, Aaron Wall, and Barry Schwartz (technologist) be the judges of the wards? Igor Berger (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Here is more evidence about Semmys.org by Michael Gray (technologist) who is a judge on the awards board. http://www.wolf-howl.com/seo/the-semmys-2008-why-i-want-to-win/ Igor Berger (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment those references are of better quality than any of the references that were used in the article itself. I suggest that you might want to do some more research and find reliable sources that backup the claim that this blogger is notable. I also suggest to be less agressive in your tone. Even if you consider Andy Beard to be notable (something I do agree on actually) does it not mean that you can assume that everybody else knows that as well. That's why exist the notability guidelines in Wikipedia, exactly for this simple reason. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 11:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those references are all blogs, not exactly reliable sources. And while they are about the Semmys in general, they are not about Mr Beard in particular. In fact they don't even mention him. Snthdiueoa (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability from reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [er notability. Marlith ^T/C 03:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Wikify The blogger does meet the WP:N requirements IMO, but I agree that the references used in the article don't fit the criteria of WP:RS, not to mention the reference to the editors own website, which could be interpreted as WP:COI, but only because the editors website does not qualify as a reliable source for this subject. The editor could dispute that of course and bring it to the attention of the RS Noticeboard, if he wants to. I am sure that the WP:RS problem can be corrected, if proper background research would be done. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 11:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found the following reference at The Guardian [43] and at The Age [44] that you might want to checkout for relevance to the article. p.s. I have a Google Custom Search engine (currently for testing only) at this page [45] (the third test search engine), which allows to search content of established reliable sources. I want to tweak it a bit more and then maybe create it's own domain or if it is possible a special page within Wikipedia to make it a tool for wikipedians to discover reliable sources that were overlooked. Feel free to check it out and let me know about reliable sources that are missing and other things that could be improved. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 11:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a trivial mention, not an article about him from multiple sources. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we ask Jimbo Wales if Andy Beard is notable, being that Jimbo knows Andy very well. http://andybeard.eu/2007/12/jason-calacanis-wikia-troll.html Igor Berger (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo isn't the authority on notability, and simply having a relationship with a notable person does not necessarily make the other person notable, since relationships do not transfer notability. You may want to take a look at WP:ATA, as it seems that many of your arguments against deletion here are covered by that essay. Not trying to get you down, but just trying to help you figure out the best plan of attack to combat deletion. Cheers! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like it is industry wide notability. I have asked some people with help building the article and the one's in the SEO industry came up with references to notability right a way, but the one's outside the industry say they never heard the man. So referencing online newspapers, industry blogs, industry business is not enough, then what is needed to show notablity? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references need to be about Mr Beard himself, not just about something with which he is involved. They also need to discuss him in some depth, such as whole articles specifically about him: a single paragraph or quote in the context of another article is not sufficient. Finally, the sources themselves need to be reliable: notable publications both online and offline with a reputation for fact checking. Blogs alone are not sufficient to establish notability. Snthdiueoa (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snthdiueoa I undesrstand this is a really borderline case. It would be nice if a few of us go over the article and see if it can be wikified to be acceptable. Thank you Igor Berger (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't vote on this, as I am the subject matter, but based upon recent history, as a blogger, whilst I have had numberous industry mentions, and as a blogger within the industry I have probably been referred to more times than many bloggers already regarded as being notable, I don't qualify as being notable. I am based in Poland, the US press isn't going to call me to ask a question, I don't attend speaking engagements because of the cost of travel, and in Poland I am an expat, and they would usually want to refer to a Polish national - thus gaining notability is a lot harder. That being said, the article is extremely incomplete, and needs extensive corrections otherwise it might be making false statements about a living person. That being said there are documents within Wikipedia that theoretically give some of my history.

I was a cofounder of Almathera Poland during the early 1990s and had numerous articles published in computer magazines in Poland, as well as interviews. In that role I was also one of the first publishers of Polish Software on CDRom, if not the first, with a shareware and demo scene compilation called CDPL1 CDPL1 was the first known publication of work by http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakub_Rene_Kosik and it is mentioned in his Bio, but as an American company, when in fact it was an in name only sister company to Almathera Systems in the UK.

At the inaugural Independent Games Festival, I collected the prize for Crime Cities in the Best Visual Arts Category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Games_Festival http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_Cities Published by Techland who I joined in 1996 when they had 5 staff and worked with until 2001/2002 as one of the directors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techland (note that article really needs some extensive work)

Game credits include http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,70400/ http://www.mobygames.com/game/mission-humanity http://www.mobygames.com/game/survival-the-ultimate-challenge http://www.mobygames.com/game/crime-cities

I was also involved with the early development and business presentations for Chrome http://www.mobygames.com/game/chrome

IMDB Credits me for manual and animation on Mission Humanity http://former.imdb.com/name/nm2311862/ I did actually do all the English manuals, and possibly some of my early work even made it into the final Chrome release

I didn't consult with Aureal, Videologic and Creative Labs, I sold them software I helped design. The deal which sold 100,000 units through Creative Labs was concluded whilst out on a pedalo in the middle of a Polish lake on a cell phone. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=nbT&q=%22future+beat+3d%22&btnG=Search

One of the existing interviews I did for Crime Cities is on Gamasutra (you need a free membership to read it) http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20001023/brown_03.htm Press release for Future Beat http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/news/9907_135/

There is quite a good interview with Mike Gamble of Microsoft and myself in a September 1999 issue of Computer Trade Weekly - a special edition for ECTS 1999 focusing on Game Development in Eastern Europe, and around that time, at The launch of the Pentium 3, GDC and Milia I must have done 100 or more press interviews for both online and print magazines, but I don't have copies, and if the stories went to press they might not have mentioned me by name.

We also did some OpenGL Graphics drivers in those days (1996/1997) http://www.golem.de/9807/1165.html

We also did some other drivers that got loads of press, but I don't have copies of the NDAs and they might have been for more than 10 years.

During my time running Almathera Poland we had frequent press mentions and interviews, I even have a couple of old copies of defunct magazines somewhere.

As for blogging, who knows, I can pick up a story and run with it, such as being the centre of the PageRank updates in October http://www.techmeme.com/071024/p28#a071024p28

I am well regarded as one of the instigators of the "dofollow" movement

As for the Guardian interview - if you are famous and you burb, you get massive press attention - if you are a source and give a 2 hour interview, you get a small paragraph without a link. I did question that, and the author of the article, and the editor of the technology section responded http://andybeard.eu/2007/09/linking-abuse-or-linking-awareness.html

Jimmy Wales has left just a single comment on my blog, Matt Cutts has never referenced my blog because I don't tow the Google line

My relationship with Blogcatalog is financial though very minor

I don't make MFA sites though I have tested a few scripts

The Jason Calacanis podcast was also featured on Fast Company http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/118/man-vs-machine.html

But that is background - my opinion is I am probably not notable per the Wikipedia requirements for notability, because the games industry stuff shouldn't count if someone like Mike Gamble isn't included http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=mike+gamble&go=Go In those days Mike was on a similar level to John Carmack. p.s. I only saw this from a click through in my stats - a month or so back I told Igor that I shouldn't be listed as an SEO consultant, because I don't take consultancy work and can't be looked on as a notable consultant because I am not listed. To be honest I have no real interest in being included in Wikipedia, it is not like I am hard to find in Google, and I have full control over the content. It is one of the reasons I use a Polish translation of my name here. The information provided here is just to give you a clearer background should you decide to keep it, and possibly to save some time on whether ultimately you will have a page that qualifies.AndrzejBroda (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I know you told me you are not interested in the article, but you are a legion and the bloggers your children need you. So as a blogger and your child - follower I do have WP:COI but only in respect that I am interested in making this article notable. Thank you for coming over and I am sorry for putting you in the spotlight. Igor Berger (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Andy, it does not matter if you are poor or rich if you buy links or sell liks, but what matters is that you stand up and fight for what you believe in! Igor Berger (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Throes of Dawn[edit]

'Delete Does not meet notability requirements as set out in WP:MUSIC. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets the guideline with five albums released through notable labels, and plenty of sources available. Prolog (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neg neither woodcut or wounded love are notable indy labels, def does not meet WP:MUSIC -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wounded Love = Avantgarde Music. Anyway, the four links above are enough. Prolog (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wounded Love is a label in its own right which is owned by Avantgarde. You can't say that something released on Wounded Love has been released on Avantgarde. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if trivial links like that (that aren't even in English!) would suffice. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider interviews as "trivial", I wonder what coverage is non-trivial enough for you. And yes, non-English sources are allowed and often used in the English Wikipedia. Prolog (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Q: What do you think of the current black metal scene? A: Blah, blah, blah, we are great, everything else is unoriginal, worship us! = notable ??? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that question/answer combination is from any of those sources I presented, so maybe you should stick to the English language sources such as these. Prolog (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think that press releases issued by their American distributor undeniably prove their notability, most entirely trivial which only mention the band. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to say what proves a band "undeniably notable", but it is not hard to say that this band meets criteria 1, 5 (Wounded Love Records, Cleopatra Records, two re-issues by Avantgarde Music) and 6 (Rotten Sound, ...and Oceans) of your preferred guideline for notability; WP:MUSIC. Prolog (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not meet 1. read the list of exclusions, nor 5, reprints don't count. If you're therefore hinging your vote on 6, perhaps we could just create a redirect to Oceans or Rotten sound per WP:MUSIC. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews I listed already meet criterion 1. If you want to list your own rules like "reprints don't count" and "sub-labels of notable labels are not notable", maybe you should create User:Librarianofages/Notability. I'm fairly certain you won't find many editors agreeing with these positions. Prolog (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm not taking liberty to do any such thing.. It states "releases", a reprint is not a release. and please read carefully, it says that articles "where the band talk about themselves" are not valid. Perhaps it should be you who creates User:Prolog/Liberalsinterpretationsonatheme. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article disagrees with you; "...an album which has been released at least once before and is released again...". A re-release is therefore a release. Magazine articles about bands are almost always made in interview form. The "band talking about themselves" part is not meant to rule out interview-based sources. Guidelines are advisory and should be treated with common sense, so whenever you have to "read carefully", you are in fact reading too carefully. Prolog (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or one might not be reading carefully enough ;) -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Prolog. There isn't much to add, but I think the sources linked above are indications of some notability. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prolog's sources are sufficient to establish the band's notability. Chubbles (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. —Reedy Boy 14:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esterhazy Airport[edit]

Extremely minor airport with no claim for notability. DJBullfish (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It's an airport. It has a 3000 foot runway. It is, in my view, notable. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 01:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Esterhazy, Saskatchewan. The information will fit well and I seriously doubt anybody is going to look for the airport and not want to know about the town. Torc2 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't large enough to have an IATA code, probably not notable. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that all airports are notable. However, if the consensus is to delete or merge, then consideration should be given to the 100s of similar airport articles. Disclosure, I created the article and left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Are all airports notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Simply put, most if not all airports are notable. In many cases, they are engines that keep many communities alive. In remote areas of Canada, don't know if this is one, they provide access to critical medical services. They also are the major provider of tourists in many remote or hard to reach areas. So simply being small or in an out of the way place does not make a minor airport not notable. Small does make on line sourcing difficult. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Consensus has found that all airports are notable. The only airports I recall getting deleted weren't really airports but unpaved landing strips. This airport is not one of those. --Oakshade (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any proper airport has to be notable in its own right. A 3,000 foot runway is a lot of tarmac. Nick mallory (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All approved airports are notable, if the field can get a Location ID from the governing body of it's country then it's good enough to have an article here! --Trashbag (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as Keep. —Reedy Boy 14:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Grey[edit]

Delete does not meet notability requirements as set out in WP:MUSIC. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Boyz Click[edit]

Hoax. Completely unreferenced and speculative article on what is supposedly an interstate criminal organization. A simple web search suggests that this is nothing more than the vanity project of a few friends or an attempt to promote some gangster rap band. No claims of notability per se, only vague mentions of murder and drug trafficking. These mentions are topped off by the inherent WP:BLP liability of naming a leader of a gang. Posting here to review the case for deletion and salting. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:ORG and due to severe WP:BLP problems. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX (per nom), WP:BLP (ditto) and WP:NFT (vanity project of creators, per google search of nom). I'd also suggest a light coat of salt Doc Strange (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, a lack of sources and some of the claims in the article make me smell a hoax, with a side-order of something made up. And yes, we could have salt with that. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on this is true they are only located in Houston, Houston Prisons and in New Orleans, why do yall come over here and check(Young597 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I Know Cordell Mouton he is the leader of the Hot Boyz Click he lives in Northcliffe Manor. i use to be in the gang but they betrade me, and Meshack Jones, he got arrested 1 month ago cause of Drug Possesion in Willowood and he got 4 months in Jail. They Both go to Klein Forest High School and they keep fighting in the school. and the killings in Northline did happened and they really killed a priest in the District.(Phillies48 (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Those murders from Northline are true It happened in Parker Rd. and Arline Dr. Everyone got shocked that they also killed a priest of a local church.(Realcashmoney5 (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If they did do something highly noteworthy, it would've shown up on Google News. All the proper google searches lead to Wikipedia mirror sites, MySpace and similarly named song by a rapper named Camron. Also the things that the "members" of this "gang" have done aren't notable enough anyhow Doc Strange (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. Also, does anyone smell socks? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:HOAX only found a myspace and don't block the article this gang is true but its only in the north of houston and there are some activity up around that area.(Juanhernandez59 (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The sources disclosed in the discussion have been added to article's talk page if not all ready in the article. Non-admin close. Xymmax (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald C. Godwin[edit]

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long‎, Charles S. Venable‎, Archibald C. Godwin‎, Cullen A. Battle‎, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh‎, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton‎ - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: this is so far from being OR as to be a likely copyvio; and the source is easily verifiable: just check out a copy of Stewart Sifakis, Who Was Who in the Confederacy (1989) ISBN 0816022046. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Godwin has substantial coverage in numerous sources. See Google Book Search [46] which leads to [47] a lengthy section in a book " Confederate Military History: A Library of Confederate States History" by General Clement A. Evans(2004). See also Doug;as Freeman, "Lee's Liuetenants" p 634 [48]. See "Gettysburg--Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill" By Harry W. Pfanz, p 258 [49]. Seems more than enough to satisfy WP:BIO, without any need for "original research." Edison (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drastique[edit]

'Delete N/N per WP:MUSIC. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep External links need some cleaning up but some of those are decent reliable sources (Rockdetector, etc.). Chubbles (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs de-POVing, however! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources are reliable (Encyclopaedia Metallum, Rockdetector) and the band is distributed worldwide by highly respected labels (Relapse and Century Media). They appear on some important cd compilations too (Metallian, Rock Hard, etc.). 14:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Johnston[edit]

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long‎, Charles S. Venable‎, Archibald C. Godwin‎, Cullen A. Battle‎, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh‎, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton‎ - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: this is so far from being OR as to be a likely copyvio; and the source is easily verifiable: just check out a copy of Stewart Sifakis, Who Was Who in the Confederacy (1989) ISBN 0816022046. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not OR and verifiable, unless someone has a copy of the reference book and can check that this information is inaccurate. Pburka (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See "Confederate Military History: A Library of Confederate States History" By General Clement A. Evans, p 320 [50]. See "Stephen Dodson Ramseur: Lee's Gallant General" By Gary W. Gallagher p 121[51]. See "Histories of the Several Regiments and Battalions from North Carolina..." By Walter Clark, p422 [52]. There are many books which at least mention him hidden behing the "snippet view" which contain unknown amounts of detail. Satisfies WP:BIO. An ill-founded nomination apparently lacking any effort to find whether references existed. Edison (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen A. Battle[edit]

User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.

Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long‎, Charles S. Venable‎, Archibald C. Godwin‎, Cullen A. Battle‎, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh‎, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton‎ - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: this is so far from being OR as to be a likely copyvio; and the source is easily verifiable: just check out a copy of Stewart Sifakis, Who Was Who in the Confederacy (1989) ISBN 0816022046. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please stop listing articles for deletion without at least a cursory search of such easy sources as Google Book Search. A Google Book search for his name along with "confederate" to reduce false positives shows scads of sources. Can't tell much about the snippet views, but see[53] , [54],[55] , [56] which at least mentions his being wounded, [57] which says he served in the US Congress after the civil war, and [58]. This is far from a complete listing but it is sufficient. Edison (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Whos Who gives notability plus above find. Ive started to wikify and assess. Victuallers (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, and appears to meet musical notability guidelines. Canley (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Lunacy[edit]

Delete does not meet WP:Music. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Five other Wikis have an article on this band. Clearly a group of significant international importance. Chubbles (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should nom those for deletion as well, the band has not released 2 albums on a major label and don't meet any of the other guidelines as set out in WP:MUSIC. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Their 2000 album was released on Metal Blade and their most recent album came out on Frontiers Records, both highly significant labels. The 2004 album was released on a major label in Japan (JVC Victor), as well as in China (not sure about that label). Discography Chubbles (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Smashville^BONK! 22:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan J. Davis[edit]

Potentially COI article. Kept being added by a person with the subject's name, but now made with a different name. It was speedied several times. He directed an off-off-Broadway play. The play got mentioned in some stories about the duo that the play was about. The subject of the article was not mentioned. There's the all-purpose "Who's Who of High School Students" thrown in there. He won an award for being an altar boy. He worked in low capacities on various political runs. He wrote a story about a semi-notable person being kicked out of school for being gay. Notability isn't inherited. Smashville^BONK! 01:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Gays For Guliani? The video he directed that was featured on CNN, MSNBC, and a major feature in the washington post? ^[1]I'll be adding a whole section on that project today, which will include links to articles about Mr. Davis from Fox News, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Advocate and various other print media. TheatreKid01 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_J._Davis#Gays_For_Giuliani Does that make him anymore notable? TheatreKid01 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the White Noise section. Included Awards info. Please make me aware of what more needs to be done. Please advise. TheatreKid01 (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to Withdraw This Nom for the time being. I am no longer 100 percent certain that this person will not meet notability guidelines and would like to give the author more time. --Smashville^BONK! 22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jones Family take L.A by Storm[edit]

The content is not suitable for an encyclopedia WP:DEL2, it's probably a hoax WP:DEL4, there is no reliable sources of information for such a content WP:DEL8 and it's not notable enough WP:DEL14.Cenarium (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete it's either a hoax or a press release. I don't know which. In any case, it has no place on Wikipedia Doc Strange (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A Hilton sisters-like hoax. CMM isn't dating either one of these women and they probably don't even exist. Nate · (chatter) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete on all accounts. The article is also written like a newspaper article, instead of an encyclopedia article. -- azumanga (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all above, and there are significant WP:BLP problems as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. jj137 ^♠ 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EIA RETMA Chassis Wiring Color Code[edit]

Unencyclopedic - falls to establish any kind of notability on its own. It might have been beneficial to merge with RETMA - but no such article exists. Wisdom89 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reasons Cenarium (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Oyster guitarist 02:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as it was used, is useful, and is small, so it can be merged to EIA. It also establishes notability, in that it was a standard that was widely used, according to the article. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Timeline of the future to preserve the history and references. Editors are encouraged to merge there and to year articles as appropriate (and as has already begun). Pastordavid (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future timeline of Earth[edit]

This page is useless. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on years in the future with exactly the same purpose. It would take forever for the article to be complete; In fact, I'd doubt it is possible. Editorofthewiki (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! -- Every day at AfD, the articles become more absurd. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 00:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On which basis you are saying the article absurd? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is just a set of disparate predictions that already are listed elsewhere and serve no real purpose on their own. I disagree with the person that says we should not only keep this article, but make it much longer. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 13:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, all the info are not present elsewhere. And a short article needs improvement, not deletion. These pridictions are based on extensive scientific research by reputed scientists and research institutes. This article documents the events which have great impact on Earth. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is already covered by individual years articles (not to mention articles on upcoming centuries and even millennia). I would recommend merging any sourced events that haven't been listed already in the applicable years articles, as well as adding any of the sources used here that aren't used elsewhere. 23skidoo (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to go along the lines of "crystal-balling". These are all predictions, speculation, and expectations for the future. It doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. -Koryu Obihiro (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific prdictions are not crystall-balling. Explain why you are telling the article in not encyclopedic? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate and too authoritative. Earlier I attempted to move this to Timeline of events predicted by future studies, as that title would better reflect the basic premise for the article. However, without any way to objectively judge the relative importance of possible future events and the veracity of their claimants, any article on the topic seems arbitrary. Since there are individual articles on such topics as the risks of impact with Near-Earth objects, the implications of climate change, the future evolution of the Solar System, not to mention the entries in Category:Years in the future, I have trouble conceiving any use for this list. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This made me laugh. This is basically the definition of crystal ballery and most of the article is WP:OR involving Global Warming. There are a few inevitable facts here (the Andromeda Galaxy colliding with the Milky Way, the eventual expansion of the Sun in a Red Giant), but otherwise it's in total violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Doc Strange (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove why you are telling it crystall-balling? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I never knew Wikipedia was a crystal ball! --SuperGodzilla 2090 00:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Several votes here seem to completely ignore the practice of future studies. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to properly attributed or notable predictions. Many predictions have a solid scientific basis or inspire substantial debate and deserve to be documented. See the ultimate fate of the universe or risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. Dismissing any and all future predictions as "crystal-balling" is not productive. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but why have this and timeline of the future? Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sadly, I wasn't aware of that article. The best solution might be to merge both to logarithimic timeline of the future and provide a clear set of criteria for including only significant global/astronomical events. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL.--Sunny910910~~

Scientific theories don't fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Surely the future of the earth is notable!--58.111.143.164 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect after some consideration.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to earth, all of it can be mentioned on the page for planet earth--58.111.143.164 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^{(talk|Contributions)} 01:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anetode is quite correct about verifiable speculation. The crystal ball policy, q.v., does not apply to verifiable speculation and reliable analyses performed outside of Wikipedia, which what is listed here is. (The policy explicitly says that it is addressing unverifiable speculation and original research. I encourage the above editors to refresh their memories of it.) About half of the predictions here have citations to enable readers to verify that such events have, indeed, been predicted, based upon external analyses. I tried to check out the source for one prediction, selected at random, and actually found a second source for it!
However, this article is a simple duplicate of timeline of the future, even down to the fact that, although editors haven't tried to make it such, it has developed into a roughly logarithmic timeline anyway. Furthermore, the imprecision of the dates given for the medium and far future predictions, such as the Arctic sea being ice-free in the summer (the one that I checked), lends itself more naturally to the logarithmic scale. (The second source that I found said "within the next century". And, indeed, that (general) prediction is already listed on timeline of the future as within the next 10-100 years. I've added the specific prediction, citing the source that I found.)
The WP:CRYSTAL policy does not apply. Some of this content is verifiable. The article is simply a duplicate of a better, more appropriately arranged, article that we already have. Just merge it there. No deletion is required. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A small problem with the timeling of the future article, it's too short, and also it has no sources. We need to merge both if anything, then expand the article subject thousandfold. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merging both is what I just wrote. Uncle G (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collabrate. (edit conflict)This isn't a vote for either keep, delete, or neutral, but a suggestion. Surely many of our readers will want to know about the future. It really helps to have all the information in one place, then, doesn't it? So, let's link ALL the articles as seealsos to each other that have to do with future projections of global and universal potential expected destined details! Where can I find this information? We need some sort of article that will tell us this in one place, or close to it, so readers don't have to go to a hundred different places then try to remember all of it, and worse try to remember where these come from! Must be better worth it to go to space.com, livescience.com, discover.com, etc... ... ... . We need some sort of page, maybe a portal or WikiProject page that will tell us where to find this information. I too thought this was crystal balling at first, so I decided to try and work on it. No I don't think it'll be worth much effort to try and work on it if it's going to be deleted. I know, you can include perhaps thousands, or even tens of thousands of potential predicted events into this article. There are probably a total of several thousand articles related to this subject. So, we have a dilemma here. If we keep this article as it is, it will be deleted. If we work our butts off trying to expand it and merge several thousand articles, it will be split or remerged into other articles and the whole article will be useless. If we keep it in-between it will be both. What about a whole article like, list of future-related articles, or link all those several thousand articles from see also links, then link more from those, then more from those...until we get enough information in one place. Seriously, I can't even find much information about the future anymore, like what actually are the eight or more stars expected to come close to the sun within the next million years? Perhaps the only way I can find that out is either try searching Wikipedia, which will take forever, searching Google, which will take even more forever, asking on the reference desk, but maybe they don't know, checking out an article like blueshift, but I don't know if they can list all of them, downloading Celestia, which only offers views from other stars and I'm not sure if it can track proper motion...why don't we just wait until we're borgs? Well, because that's speculation as well. We need some kind of article that can include large amounts of predictions about the future, while not crossing the line of crystal balling. Remember that this is sourced, and it is somewhat possible to work on the content, removing the crystals, keeping the content. In theory, it is possible to build up and article like this, but it will take forever to include everything, and when we suceed either Wikipedia has been swallowed by sea level rise, or most of the many thousand events will have already either have been past history, or never happened. Can be wait until they happen? No, most of us can't live 1.4 million years in order to witness Gliese 710 appear as bright as Antares. Some things can be predicted without developing crystals, like census predictions of world population, as long as we mention it is the census' prediction and we don't find too many conflicting sources. Obviously we can't predict everything, but many of the things we can predict have reliable sources: they're predicted by them, not us. So, if anyone is crystalballing, it's the reliable source. I think one of the important purposes and advantages of Wikipedia is to have all the infomation in one place, so we don't have to spend years searching on Google, which by then the information might not be useful anymore. Well, Wikipedia is huge. I mean, who searching for the possibilities of future on wiki is going to be able to visualize and get the exact spelling and word usage correct, with no prior knowledge of naming of Wikipedia articles, "Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth"? How are they to know how the parts, "civilization", "humans", and "planet Earth" are ordered? How are they to know that "humans" isn't spelt "humanity", that "planet Earth" isn't spelt as "Earth" or "the world", how do they know that "Risks" isn't "hazards", how do they know that there is no serial comma? Of course they could search, but they might use a Google-like search method, like "risks hazards future Earth humans danger potential doomsday possibilities projections predictions"? That they might use on Youtube, but it probably wouldn't work too well here. How do they know, then, that this article exisists? They could look up "Doomsday", then read their way through all the see also links. Obviously, that means there are too many different articles on different but ultimately related subjects. In fact, there are so many articles that it's like Google. What we need, is a collabration effort or a Wikiproject that will include information with answers to questions like, "What will the constellations look like in a million years", or "What star within the next 100 million years will have the highest gravitational pertrebution to the Solar system"? Do we have articles on potential future scenarios like robot takeover of Earth or the cooldown of the core? Do we know on Wikipedia when peak oil, peak natural gas, peak coal is expected to take place? Sure, most of this is speculation, but there are predictions and projections made by reliable sources. If we include all this as crystal balling, then why have anything about the future? Indeed, the line between crystal balling and non-crystal balling can at times be very thin. So, to conclude, we need some kind of collabration in order to put the information that is so hard to search on Wikipedia otherwise we will have to ask the reference desk, all in a place, through links, that makes it for our readers, and our edittors, to easily find. We shouldn't need to ask every few days in order to find all the information on Wikipedia we need to find. Before I fall asleep, bye. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a friendly comment that I can't read that much unbroken text at once! — Matt Crypto 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, edit, and rename to something like Predicted crises on Earth or something like that. The policies against speculation prevent editors from crystal balling, but it doesn't prohibit predictions of the future from published reliable sources from being documented in Wikipedia. Most of the items on this chart aren't crackpot theories; they're legitimate predictions from reputable scientists. The article is badly named, but has a place as a kind of chronology glossary of impending doom. Torc2 (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic despite being WP:INTERESTING. JJL (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove the article is unencyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I just wonder how the article is being said absurd. If it is absurd, then 100, 22nd century all articles will be absurd. The article is writen from a scientific viewpoint and incorporates all the events (in planetary levgel including events in environmental, astronomical and other fields which have imapct on Earth) predicted in future. I agree the article need rapid expansion, but it is an excelent work after finishing. The article can be renamed Predicted crises on Earth or something, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The events which the article documents are based on scientific research, not opinion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be merged into the appropriate year articles and delete. This list will never be complete. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it will be complete, just you wait and see! You'll see! You'll all see!!! Mwhah hah hahhah! Seriously though, being open-ended isn't sufficient cause to delete a list. (There's even a template for that.) Torc2 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't make a distinction between the future of Earth (the planet), and the humans who live there. It also needs a lead with clear inclusion criteria. If the article were restricted to scientific predictions on what will happen to the planet, I'd change my vote. All the notable planned stuff that humans will do is far too broad a list. --Phirazo 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? - ∅ (∅), 06:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I second this sentiment. Adding it to that list kind of demeans the legitimate scientific nature of the article. It's like an NPOV categorization. Torc2 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing in the article that has anything to do with SF or fantasy; I've removed it from the list. - ∅ (∅), 07:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article is coathanger for synthesis and original reseach. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Identify where is the synthesis and original reseach. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)][reply]
  - Yes, verifiability is not the issue here, but rather duplication of content. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not really a duplication if it's presenting the material in a new perspective. It's just like how lists and categories can present the same information differently, yet WP:CLS specifically advises that they're not supposed to be in competition. There's nothing that excludes Timeline presentation of material for easy overview; it's just a different form of summary. Torc2 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Ridiculus. Ridiculas deletion sorting. This article have been taken in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction. Ridiculas deletion sorting. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as currently written. It's an interesting idea for an article, but we simply can't use the wording "X will happen" on Wikipedia without breaking either OR, NPOV or indulging in crystal-ball gazing. It's also difficult to be balanced in the choice of what predictions you hang on the timeline. To what extent would you include the various eschatologies of the Abrahamic religions, for example? It's not acceptable, by NPOV, to write this from the "scientific viewpoint" (as the author asserts it is). "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future", and all that. — Matt Crypto 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To no extent, as that would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. Anyone can found a religion and write in their holy scriptures that the world will explode in 2036, whereas in science you'd have to provide some evidence that this is likely to happen. The scientific point of view is the neutral point of view. - ∅ (∅), 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We should always be careful to make sure we give treatments of ideas in proportion to their prominence, but that's a separate matter. I'm sorry, but if you think NPOV is the scientific point of view, then you've fundamentally misunderstood NPOV. This is not really the place to discuss that, of course. — Matt Crypto 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe some people have fundamentally misunderstood what science is? NPOV is the substance of which science is made. This is an article about what is actually likely to happen in the real world, and thus falls under the scope of science, not religion. I see nothing in WP:NPOV or WP:NPOVFAQ that contradicts my understanding of a neutral point of view, but again this is not the place to discuss that. If I'm reading our policy wrong, please feel free to enlighten me on my talk. - ∅ (∅), 05:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - The first complaint sounds like just a minor content issue; something that could be solved through rewording. If the article is introduced with the clear statement that these are potential earth catastrophes that have been published in reliable sources, it pretty much eliminates every concern, including NPOV. If you were concerned that religion is underrepresented, there is End time and Apocalyptic literature. Torc2 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is redundant to many years in the future articles. Chris! _ct 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and cleanup per Torc2 Hobit (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —∅ (∅), 06:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Timeline of the future, or the other way around. - ∅ (∅), 07:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Delete as redundant to future year articles, but most definitely not as WP:CRYSTAL. Sorry Otolemur, but there's nothing here that isn't already found somewhere else on the wiki. - ∅ (∅), 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This info cannot be merged with Timeline of the future, because the Timeline of the future article is about "Timeline of future" (which include the future timeline of Earth, sports, film, universe, solar system everything), and this article is about only the future timeline of Earth(in planetary level). The subject matter of the two articles are different. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing administrator Most of the delete votes here are based on ignorance in Future studies, most people gave delete vote here ignored Futurology and Future studies. Some people say it duplication of other articles, but this is neither inscientific, nor duplication of any other article. This article documents the timeline of events on planetary level which will have great impact on Earth, this article documents these is a scientific approach, these are not speculation or personal opinion. I agree the article needs improvement, but it does not mean we should be happy with deleting it. An underdeveloped article needs improvement, not deletion. Many people gave delete vote by saying this article is crystall ball. But scientific predictions with references from reputed scientists and reputed research organisations are not crystall ball. This is a well-referenced article, and will be a asset after finishing. I will request the closing administrator to evaluate this, as most of the delete votes are Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it, and incorrect implication of crystall ball. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Otolemur speaks words of wisdom. See also Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat Death - while this might be an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, I'd like to point out that other scientific crystal ball articles do exist, and are neither deleted nor rewritten for "NPOV" with respect to Abrahamic eschatology, which would be just as ludicrously absurd as teaching the controversy in every timeline of the past. We don't do that, and I cannot imagine why we should treat the future any differently. - ∅ (∅), 12:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, the nominator, agree with you on all counts except one: it is still a duplication of content on the year, decade, century etc. articles. All this could be merged into them with ease. I agree, this ins not crystal balling and not enough refs, but Ijust wanted to point out the uselessness of the article. Editorofthewiki (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I changed my !vote to delete, but I still stand behind my argument that this should not be deleted as a crystal ball article (but rather because it's redundant). :-) - ∅ (∅), 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment to closing administrator Some people are claiming that this article is duplication of other articles. The people who claim this will not be able to prove it because their claim is baseless. May be some events in future will be present in that year article, but this article has a wide range, and many of the events present in this article are not present in that year articles. Many events are described in this article, which wikipedia has no year article. So it is a complete baseless claim. The article is based on Future studies. This article will be improved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment to disprove Otelemur Sure there are many years with no Wikipedia article. They get divided into decades, centuries, and finally millenia. You are saying that this is a completely baseless claim. Here's one example, from the 11th millennium and beyond article, the furthest future article here:

Future timeline of Earth: ...

c. 1,000,000,000
- The last total solar eclipse on Earth will occur.^[2]

c. 3,000,000,000
- The Andromeda Galaxy and our Milky Way Galaxy are predicted to collide.

c. 6,500,000,000
- The Sun will become a red giant and any remaining life on Earth, and possibly Earth itself, will be destroyed.

11th millennium and beyond: ...

1,000,000,000: The last total solar eclipse on Earth will occur.^[3]
3,000,000,000: The Andromeda Galaxy and our Milky Way Galaxy are predicted to collide.
6,500,000,000: The Sun becomes a red giant and any remaining life on Earth, and possibly Earth itself, is destroyed.

...

Now how is my claim baseless? Want more proof, Otelemur? Here it is from the article 2100s:

Future timeline of Earth: ...

2100
- 12% (about 1250) of the bird species existing at the beginning of the 21st century are expected to be extinct or threatened with extinction.^[4]

...

2100s:

...

By 2100, 12% (about 1250) of the bird species existing at the beginning of the 21st century are expected to be extinct or threatened with extinction, according to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, July 4, 2006.

...

I could go on an on forever, since this article is nothing more than a rephrazing of other articles, and in some cases, a copy of them. Therefore, I don't understand howmy claim is "baseless" since I easily found that information from several articles. If you, instead of me, had to do the research, then maybe you would understand me. I challenge you to disprove my claim now. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment to closing administrator: The people who claimed this article is duplication misinterpreted my statement. I had already said that "some events in future will be present in that year article". The people in his defence shows some of those events present in those year articles, but the people failed to prove that the other evnts, majority of the evnts given here are duplication. The people had showed only four events which are present in other articles, but failed to prove that majority of the evnts described here are present in other articles or not. Also these article has a particular purpose, i.e. to describe the timeline. In wikipedia an event described in a particular year article may be present in other date articles, because the event happened in that date and in that year. It does not mean one is another duplication. As I have already said, again saying that an underdeveloped article needs expansion, not deletion. After completion, this article will be an asset, this article has a particular topic, i.e. Future studies. So if four evnts are present in that year articles, this article's value do not become less. The majority of the events described here are not present anywhere, and this article will be expanded. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will request the closing administrator at four things:

First, many delete votes are based on saying this article is crystall ball, but crystall ball do not apply here. Because these are scientific predictions by reputed scientists and research organizations based on scientific research.
- Agreed. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second, most of the delete votes ignored Future studies and Futurology.
- How does this apply in any way, shape, or form? It's justy an article explaining, you guessed it, Future studies and Futurelogy. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third, some people said this article a duplication, but as I have showed above, this is false claim.
- And as I have shown below, it is not a false claim. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And finally that this article is a part of Future studies and has great potential. It will be expanded. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the great potential lies in the year articles, dear friend. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment to closing administrator Do I have to prove every fact here is written elsewhere? It is, but I thought that four examples would be enough to convince you. I guess I will have to prove my point again by doing the menial task of showing my point. Also, Otelemur, how does this serve a practical purpose? You stated:

...Also these article has a particular purpose, i.e. to describe the timeline....

How does this describe the timeline? Besides, all additions to this article could be placed elsewhere, into the decade, century, millenia articles. Please, closing admin, understand Otolemur's incredibly weak statements (and bad spelling) before youdo anything to this article. It might seem as though this is a no consensus, but in reality my points easily trump Otelemur's. Editorofthewiki (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to editors What is with all the notes to the closing admin? They are going to read the entire AfD discussion, not just the parts that say "Hey admin! Read this!". --Phirazo 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And oh, how I pity the closing admin for this mess. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editorofthewiki's List of Duplication of Content in the "Future timeline of Earth"[edit]

coming soon if my point does not get across, but feel free to do it yourself.

References[edit]

^ New York Activists Say Giuliani Has Retreated on Gay Issues - washingtonpost.com
^ Anthony Kendall, The Final Total Eclipse
^ Anthony Kendall, "The Final Total Eclipse"
^ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, July 4, 2006

Keep Adequate sort of a summary. i frankly do not see the absurdity. It's understood that this is somewhat speculative in some aspects--but that is no harm. Sensible speculation with some basis to it is not banned by CRYSTAL. DGG (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, youfail to realise that thisis a duplication of content which would look much better in the year articles. I agree with you on everything else, though. Editorofthewiki (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment to closing administrator I will request the closing administrator to note the fact that the people who called this article a duplication of other article showed only four events which are present in other year articles. Presence of only four events in other year articles do not imply that this article is duplication. So calling this article duplication of other articles is a blatant misuse.

The closing administrator, please read the article. You yourself will understand that apart from the four events, which the people showed in his defence, the majority of the events described in the article are not present anywhere. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are. And even if they weren't, they would look better under the decades, years, centuries, and millenia. Want some more? Here they are:

Future timeline of earth:

2020
- Global oil production is expected to peak.^[1]
- World population is expected to reach 7.6 billion people.^[2]
- Flash floods are expected to increase in all parts of Europe.^[1]

2020:

Global oil production is expected to peak.^[1]
World population is expected to reach 7.6 billion people.^[2]
Flash floods are expected to increase in all parts of Europe.^[1]

Future timeline of earth:

2030
- World population is expected to reach 8.2 billion people.^[2]
- 18 percent of the world’s coral reefs are expected to be lost due to climate change.^[1]
- Ice caps and glaciers on equatorial mountains in Africa are expected disappear due to warming temperatures.^[3]

2030:

World population is expected to reach 8.2 billion people.^[2]
18 percent of the world’s coral reefs are expected to be lost due to climate change.^[1]
Ice caps and glaciers on equatorial mountains in Africa are expected disappear due to warming temperatures.^[3]

See what I mean? Now we have 10 examples.Editorofthewiki (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing administrator The people who nominated this deletion has now started trolling and started to add information from this article to other year article. The people is showing the information in other articles has added this information there. These were not present previously. The people copy-pasted these information from this article to other articles. So please see that why this article will be deleted. There is no wikipedia rule that same information cannot be present in separate articles. If reader want to know the timeline of events in future, then what will he/she do? What is the purpose of wikipedia? Wikipedia is meant for giving the reader encyclopedic knowledge which he/she wants. It is not a valid argument that if some inormation is present in an article, then the same information cannot be included in other article. Please see that the information are present indiscriminately in various future year articles. The information given in this article is not present in the same format in another any one article, but are present indiscriminately in numerous articles. Now if a reader has come in wikipedia to learn about the future timeline of Earth, then what he/she would do? Will he/she check the numerous year articles, is it possible for him/her? Please consider what is the purpose of an encyclopedia. Please consider what is the purpose of wikipedia. This article has a particular purpose, i.e. to give the reader a clear view of the timeline of future which have great impact on Earth. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Punkmorten (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Bangguo[edit]

relatively unknown chinese politician. Not very significant Solidpilot12 (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Second ranking in the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress automatically qualify this person as notable and verifiable. As with most things on wikipedia, it could do with greater referencing, but there's no reason to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyharmless (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Nominator's only contributions are related to this deletion [59]. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regardless of that, he seems to easily meet notability. matt91486 (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like a good stub --Pensil (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. jj137 ^♠ 20:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Hopkins[edit]

Fails WP:BIO- Just a guest actor Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 04:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keap - The article can be improved to comply with BIO UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 11:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has appeared in numerous shows and films besides Lost. Catchpole (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f "Timeline: The Frightening Future of Earth".
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d "World Population".
^ ^a ^b "Fabled Equatorial African Icecaps to Disappear".

[1] New York Activists Say Giuliani Has Retreated on Gay Issues - washingtonpost.com

[2] Anthony Kendall, The Final Total Eclipse

[3] Anthony Kendall, "The Final Total Eclipse"

[4] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, July 4, 2006

[LivescienceTimelineOfEarth-5] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f "Timeline: The Frightening Future of Earth".

[Census-6] "World Population".

[AfricanDisappear-7] "Fabled Equatorial African Icecaps to Disappear".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]