Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 20

< November 19	November 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. GlassCobra 01:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niia[edit]

Delete she won a $1,500 prize, which was a second class win, and no indication that she meets WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artist meets WP:MUSIC criteria #2 as she presently has had a charted hit on national music charts: Sweetest_Girl_(Dollar_Bill). Artist meets criteria #11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network: Sweetest_Girl_(Dollar_Bill). Artist also is features in a nationally airing music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PxBGHjABnU —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemeis (talk • contribs) 03:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability to come. I don't think that WP:MUSIC applies to "featured" singers on somebody else's song. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I think that if the artist's name is actually published on the Billboard charts WP:MUSIC certainly applies. Refer to November 2007 Billboard Hot 100 (current number 47) and you will see Niia listed: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+Hot+100&pageNumber=Top+11-50&g=Singles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemeis (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is supplemental linked supporting content for at least three other Wikipedia articles. References include: Wyclef Jean, Sweetest_Girl_(Dollar_Bill), and The_Carnival_II:_Memoirs_of_an_Immigrant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemeis (talk • contribs) 10:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course she's notable. Even this old man has heard of her. Published on Billboards, band member of other notable acts, and half a Million Ghits. Clean it up, tag it, and fix it later. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her three claims to fame are that she's one of three featured guest artists on a #44 song, won a nationwide high school award, and had a feature written about her as an up and coming high school level musician in the Boston Globe. The 1/2 million google hits are nearly all attributions of the hit song that list her in the tag line. I'll leave it to others to decide if that's notable. If you wait a week or two you might see what happens with her and the single. Anyway, I cleaned the article up some. It had a sentence lifted straight off a website so I fixed that. Wikidemo (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as meeting WP:BAND by touring throughout Europe. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drottnar[edit]

Delete article long on details short on sources, but nothing jumps out as meeting WP:BAND. If reliable sources can be found to show that they meet at least one or the criteria there, that's fine but nothing yet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yeah, I just looked at this page and all it needs is sources then in my opinion it would meet WP:BAND, but i'm not doing it, the author should of included sources that prove it went to those events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry teps (talk • contribs) 05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ok. I added sources for the events. Is it ok now? In my opinion the band meets the criterias #4 (has done international touring to surrort its album release and is backed with sources), #5 (has released 2 albums on indie labels, Plankton Records have been around since 1978 [1] and Endtime Productions began in 1999 [2] and brought Extol to fame and has Crimson Moonlight and Antestor in its roster, and both are difinitely notable indie labels), #7 (the article states that the band has earned a position in the elite of its scene, which is backed with a source.) --Azure Shrieker (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ . I reckon it has enough sources, plus your right, they met multiple WP:BAND without the sources anyway. Jerry'^teps 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment all 3 Keeps above were added by Jerry teps [3]. I'm sure Azure Shrieker meant to put Keep, but it's still not a good idea to make an addition to someone elses comments. And Jerry you can only express your desired outcome the once. RMHED (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, thanks for the advice. Jerry^teps 05:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry teps (talk • contribs)

Keep probably just passes WP:MUSIC. RMHED (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep --JForget 02:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wall High School (New Jersey)[edit]

This school is not important, and I fail to see why anyone would want to know about it (from an encyclopedia that is).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goalstuart (talk • contribs)

— Goalstuart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Sorry, but I am having a very hard time assuming good faith on this nomination. The nominator's account was created at 18:32 this evening, and the article was nominated for deletion also, at 18:32. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article provides reliable and verifiable sources about the accomplishments of the school and its alumni, all of which satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Perceived lack of importance or level of interest is not a valid excuse for deleting an article. This AfD was created as the first edit by a brand-new editor, with no edit history other than this AfD, justifiably raising issues of the lack of good faith. Whether the nominee is a sock puppet or a brand-new user, the fact that we allow this disruptive abuse to occur is unacceptable. Alansohn (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good article. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per SNOW: Obviously a bad-faith nomination. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hero (Warcraft)[edit]

While this was recently proposed for a merge, the content of this article still has various issues such as poor sourcing, lack of notability, and rich of gamecruft while reading like a game guide, giving little to nothing to merge to its target.

This article's references are all derived from a single source, Battle.net. With that, there are no third-party sources to establish its notability to the real world and non-players of the Warcraft series.

It also has a large amount of game-related cruft which may have the tendency to attract original research, furthering itself from getting a proper source.

Finally, Wikipedia is not a guide, and this article appears to be nearly entirely nothing more than a game guide. IAmSasori (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Keeper | 76 23:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't notable, and we're not a game guide, so the article should be deleted. It could also then be redirected. I (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just like Creep, the article is part definition and part non-notable fan information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All cruft. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalec (warcraft)[edit]

While this article is still a stub, it has been left alone with no sources and lack of notability for half a year.

There are no sources whatsoever, let alone third-party sources to establish its notability to the real world and the unfamiliar readers of this article.

Along with that, it has some if not all of its content comprised of a plot summary, something Wikipedia is not. IAmSasori (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator says it all. Keeper | 76 23:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominators assessment of the notability and game-guide nature of this article, and support its deletion. I (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Should be covered in Warcraft: The Sunwell Trilogy without a separate article. Pagra shtak 14:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability established. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uldum[edit]

While this article was recently proposed for a merge, this article has several issues hindering a successful merge, such as no sources and lack of notability.

This article has no sources whatsoever, let alone third-party sources to establish its notability to the real world and the readers who do not play the Warcraft series.

It appears to be comprised of fancruft that may attract original research to it, furthering itself from getting proper sources. IAmSasori (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, enough said. Keeper | 76 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though you misused "comprise", I agree with your asessment of the article and support its deletion, and which point it should be redirected to WOW. I (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability or referencing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, seems too specific to be covered in the parent article, so not worth merging as far as I can tell. Pagra shtak 16:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Aspect[edit]

This article is poorly sourced, unnotable fancruft with the majority comprising of plot summaries.

All the sources besides one were referenced from a Warcraft site Blizzplanet alone. The one source that isn't is referenced to a Wiki, which is not a suitable source to be used in the article.

Along with that, there are no third party sources to indicate its notability to the real world, implying that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would most likely have no interest in reading this article.

It appears to be rich in gamecruft which has a tendency to attract original research, furthering itself from getting proper from the right locations.

The article is entirely comprised of plot summaries, something Wikipedia is not and is generally not acceptable.

Finally, a precedent could be established that four of the article's five sections have been nominated for Articles for deletion and resulted as Delete:

Only Alexstrasza remains without having an individual article in the first place, and instead redirected to List of Warcraft characters. IAmSasori (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per precedent. Keeper | 76 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per precedent, topic is better covered at WoWWiki. --Stormie (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominators assessment of the notability and game-guide nature of this article, and support its deletion. I (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've played WoW, I'd say it's not even notable in-game unless you are into lore. --Voidvector (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no out-of-universe perspective. I've removed the WOWwiki citation. Pagra shtak 14:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You know what makes me annoyed about this. Why do you even keep a articles for request if you are just going to delete them. That's a waste of time. I pick what articles I create carefully, and try only creating ones out of article for requests, but they all get deleted anyway. It getting deleted doesn't frustrate me, because this is how wikipedia works. However, I pick one under article for requests, I triple check to make sure it hasn't been deleted before, I Create it and it still get's deleted.... --businessman332211 (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that I wasn't even notified of this afd. Which, is suppose to be standard practice (inform the original creator or any heavy heavy contributors of something like this. --businessman332211 (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While working on AfC backlog is commendable, one should make sure that the requested article is an article that is appropriate for Wikipedia. Being requested does not guaruntee this. And yes, it's usually considered good form to notify the original author, but it is by no means a requirement. I (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like it'll end up being deleted. I put a bit of time into this. I guess it'll be a learning experience. Next time I will double check, and if I create a fictional article, I will write it differently. --businessman332211 (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep - I vote keep. As the original author I am willing to put in whatever time is necessary to restructure the article to make it fall within policy if it does not already. I also vote keep because of the fact that the nominator has claimed there are hundreds he wants to nominate, and by looking at his history, i seems like a crusade to delete articles. Which I don't agree with. I believe article deletions should be few and far between and (based on the guidelines) only as a last resort (unless something is blantantly not proper). --businessman332211 (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps it does need a delete. I do not agree with

The user didn't notify me
The user is mass targeting a large number of articles for deletion

But those are beside the point. The fact of the matters are

I was just beginning when I created this article, so I didn't interpet policy as well as I did today.
The article really isn't notable
and even if someone tried to rewrite it out of an in-universe perspective or with real world references, there is just not enough out there to form something solid. --businessman332211 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Warcraft universe. The nom sums it up really; an unsourced article with no content other than a plot summary and gameguide. If there is actually any encyclopedic information available, merging to the parent article would be unexceptionable, though I suggest that writing such a section from scratch in a less in-universe manner would be preferable.ELIMINATORJR 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quel'Thalas[edit]

While a merge has been recently proposed, there are still too many issues with this article such as no sources, lack of notability, and comprising mainly of gamecruft and plot summaries for any proper merging.

There are no sources whatsoever on this article.

With that, there are no third party sources to establish its notability to the real world, suggesting that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have little to no interest in reading this article.

Half of this article appears to comprise of gamecruft which in turn would most likely attract original research, furthering itself from being properly sourced. There is even already hints of speculation in the article to prove such.

Finally, the other half of the article is nothing but a plot summary, which Wikipedia is not.

These issues, along with the fact that the article hardly has any attempts to rectify its problems for over a year, give little reason for the article to stand alone, let alone be merged to another target. IAmSasori (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, and it was only this one and Azeroth so I thought It'd be ok. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Does not need its own article. Delete per nom. Keeper | 76 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominators assessment of the notability and game-guide nature of this article, and support its deletion. I (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Look, there is already a Warcraft Universe article, which covers all the fictional story elements of the Warcraft universe. Notice how it has NO REFERENCES? Does that not show very plainly the difficulty of making an article just about this fictional region/country when there isn't even enough creation information yet found for the whole of the Warcraft universe? I say, delete, and then focus on building up the Warcraft Universe article, and then if that article is bursting at the seams, we can start recreating articles like this one and making it good. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge - listed at WP:VG/C User:Krator (t c) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the appropriate location. Judgesurreal, try not to paste the same thing in multiple AfDs as it implies you are just voting and not actually presenting an argument. Jtrainor (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people get all screamy when you mass nom, so he had to list separately, and there's no real purpose to writing something slightly different each time when the thrust of the argument is the same. I (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with/to Warcraft universe. In itself, this topic is not notable enough. The Warcraft universe article should deal with stuff like this. Note that I vote for an abbreviated version of the article to be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogeltje (talk • contribs) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Warcraft universe. The nom sums it up really; an unsourced article with no content other than a plot summary and gameguide. If there is actually any encyclopedic information available, merging to the parent article would be unexceptionable, though I suggest that writing such a section from scratch in a less in-universe manner would be preferable. ELIMINATORJR 00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azeroth (Warcraft)[edit]

Unsourced, unnotable cruft containing plot summaries.

There are no sources whatsoever on the article.

With that, there are no third party sources to establish its notability to the real world, suggesting that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have little to no interest in reading this article. Chances are, someone is going to argue in this AfD that this article is notable due to its connections with the Warcraft series, but notability is not inherited and should establish its notability on its own rather than relying on Warcraft's notability.

The article comprises mostly of cruft, something that has the tendency to attract original research and further its chances of being properly sourced.

Finally, with the cruft are the plot summaries, which is what Wikipedia is not and is generally not acceptable, along with the lack of sources and notability. IAmSasori (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not warrant its own article. Unsourceable gamecruft. Keeper | 76 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominators assessment of the notability and game-guide nature of this article, and support its deletion. I (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarren Mill, which was closed as delete, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caer Darrow. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Look, there is already a Warcraft Universe article, which covers all the fictional story elements of the Warcraft universe. Notice how it has NO REFERENCES? Does that not show very plainly the difficulty of making an article just about Azeroth when there isn't even enough creation information yet found for the whole of the Warcraft universe? I say, delete, and then focus on building up the Warcraft Universe article, and then if that article is bursting at the seams, we can start recreating articles like this one and making it good. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Warcraft universe. A lot of the content of this article should really be in the Warcraft universe article, and retaining history is important for the GFDL. User:Krator (t c) 17:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Warcraft universe. Nothing in the article establishes notability to warrant a separate article. Pagra shtak 17:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Warcraft universe. I was going to support keeping it but Judgesurreal777's argument changed my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atamasama (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heavily trim and merge per above and the fact that Wikipedia is not a place to describe the entire Warcraft universe in-depth. - Chardish (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Neuringer[edit]

This is more of a resume or CV than an article...very much a vanity page. Notability is also inquestion ++Arx Fortis (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Mr. Neuringer is not notable (yet) just because he is a candidate for local office, regardless of age. The sources that are cited do not establish notability, only mention him. Keeper | 76 —Preceding comment was added at 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the reasons of both contributors above. thisisace (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP, and for failing WP:BIO - article written in a very promotional tone. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Blake[edit]

Contested prod apparently by the subject of the article. I dunno where to begin...a guy "famous" for wanting to build a giant lava lamp. Note that he did not build a giant lava lamp, but the town was given one by Target. There was one article written in a local paper about him wanting to build said lava lamp. COI issues aside, actually building a giant lava lamp most likely doesn't meet WP:BIO. Not building one definitely does not. Smashville^BONK! 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per nom. How did this article survive for a year? Non notable, not sourceable, besides the WP:COI and WP:POV issues... Keeper | 76 23:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN civic booster, fails WP:BIO, WP:LOCAL. The lamp idea attracted lots of blog attention, but that isn't really transferable notability. When the Soap Lake lamp is up and running it will probably be worth an article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 23:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Balloonman (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Migration india to suriname[edit]

Delete this is an unsourced essay. The topic is probably notable, but this is not even a proper beginning of such an article, it reads like one person's view of the subject matter without any sources backing up the facts purported therein. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It needs a lot of work, and probably expert attention. But it can be fixed it seems. In the worst case, keep a stubbed down version. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once you remove the original research and the opinions and analysis, there's nothing left of the article to merge into a more appropriate title. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gut & stub per Martin Hoekstra & Carlossuarez. Rename to Indian migration to Surinam or something, also.--victor falk (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per Hoekstra. It's a notable topic that might otherwise not get covered (and believe it or not, the immigration of people from India to Surinam to the Netherlands is notable). Hoekstra wants to give it a try on fixing it. Yes, there's a lack of sourcing, but that's not to say that it couldn't be sourced. It's a contribution by someone new to the rules, perhaps someone from the Netherlands or Surinam. I get tired of the "White American college-boy" bent to Wikipedia and under WP:BIAS, giving this contribution some room to grow wouldn't be improper. I think that, rather than killing this as soon as it's hatched, we should give this the same deference that we give to, say, SpongeBob Squarepants. Mandsford (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've welcomed and notified user:Migration india to suriname--victor falk (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix this one per above. I've tagged it for resuce. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've moved it to Indian migration to Suriname, and tagged it {{essay}} and {{wikify}}--victor falk (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Four issues, a rescue, an AfD tag, and two unreferenced tags. I think it's sufficiently tagged now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:D Nah, you really think so? Btw, what article is the current holder of the Overtagging Trophy Barnstar?--victor falk 00:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge information from Hindoestanen (a ridiculous heading as nobody is ever going to look for it) to this heading (deleting what is already here). The topic is notable, but at present this is all unsourced OR about Indian-Surinamese migration to the Netherlands, so the title isn't even accurate. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look what I've found: a rather fascinating (but longish) reportage about ethnic diversity in Suriname [4]--victor falk 02:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus but based on some of the comments here, this needs some significant cleanup soon to stay here. Mr.Z-man 05:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Kurt Cobain[edit]

POV fork of Kurt Cobain. Doc^g 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean - article needs to be cleaned to maintain balance, of course. I think it is a necessary article, in my own opinion. Scarian ^Talk 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-merge. That first sentence says everything. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I think the evidence strongly supports that he simply committed suicide, I also think that there is enough information specifically about his death to warrant an article on the subject. Although their existence isn't a valid argument for the existence of this article, I nevertheless point out John F. Kennedy assassination and Death of Marilyn Monroe as precedents. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that's what I was "fishing" [sic] (Sorry, couldn't help myself) for! I just couldn't remember other similiar articles. Thanks for pointing that out. Scarian ^Talk 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge the pertinent information into the main article. No reason to feed the conspiracy theorists. Keeper | 76 23:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not familiar with the "the first sentence says everything" reason for deletion. Perhaps the first sentence needs to be changed? However, I agree that this needs to be cleaned up (the "work in progress" tag has been there for awhile). Mandsford (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge- The mention is valid; the article is overkill. ---Iconoclast Horizon 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)

Keep. This is categorically not a POV fork. Cobain's article is already overlong (and still has several missing holes). Editors have made efforts to expand this topic in Cobain's article, but are hamstrung by length restrictions. Additionally, we've had complaints from some that the section is already too long in the article, given their reservations about the topic's notability.

Cobain's death is a subject of significant public curiosity. Since his death, there have been at least five books, two movies (including Gus Van Sant's fictionalized Last Days), and several tv shows covering the subject. The intent of this article isn't to focus on the conspiracy theories - it's to discuss his death in more detail, with the conspiracy theories being an element of that.

This isn't an effort to strip the subject out of Cobain's article to please the people who think it isn't notable or an excuse to give true-believers the chance to work unfettered. It's to cover a notable topic in more depth than we can at present. -- ChrisB (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I 'voted' delete or merge above. I agree with you on the fact his death affected a lot of people and many question it but I really had to think about this one before I chimed in. In the end, I feel it should be merged and the page deleted. These are articles and not places for people to 'discuss' theories (keyword being discuss). There are lot's of places to have those kinds of discussions that can be linked to Cobain's page. His lyrics meant a lot to many people as well but I don't think the lyrics to all his songs should be listed either and all of the subsequent articles written about them. ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge unless problems remedied - This page gives undue weight to a conspiracy theory, with paragraph after paragraph detailing every single claim of this wild accusation and just two short sentences explaining that it's been widely rejected by the rest of the world. Either slash and burn that, or this article must go. FCYTravis (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I further note that the page's creator has twice reverted my attempts at remedying the undue weight issue by condensing the uncritical and unrebutted regurgitation of a fringe conspiracy theory. FCYTravis (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unrebutted regurgitation"? Did you actually read the article? Nearly every element of the theory has an accompanying challenge, either by news outlets such as Dateline NBC or by other acquaintances of Cobain.

This article shouldn't be judged for its current content. The Work-in-Progress is there for a reason - IT IS NOT A FUNCTIONING ARTICLE. I left Wikipedia for two months, and mistakenly believed that those who wanted this article (as it has been COUNTLESS TIMES requested on Cobain's talk page) would join in to finish it.

The article should be judged for its subject - is Kurt Cobain's death notable enough (and/or controversial enough) to justify an article about it? -- ChrisB (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Wait a minute... this is being debated because someone thinks it is taking up too much space? Because someone thinks that Kurt Cobain committed suicide and this information is just the "wild accusations" of "conspiracy theorists"? This is not a widely rejected conspiracy but a case where there are a lot of facts that have been ignored. There are a lot of useless pages here... why attack this one? If you did some research you would see that evidence did NOT strongly support that Kurt Cobain committed suicide and there are a lot more people who believe that than you would like to believe. I say, Proofread and reformat... This cannot be merged with the main page because there is too much information that needs to be included. Maybe the page needs a facelift and some condensing but it should not be deleted! Shelly 1979 (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean: I don't see this as a POV fork but rather an article more or less on the conspiracy theories surrounding a very famous musician's death, which is a note worth and encyclopedic article in and of itself. As per FisherQueen articles on conspiracy theories surrounding famous people's deaths are worth having. Tagging as needed is obviously a good first step to cleaning this article.Earthdirt (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit however appropriate. Even from the perspective of an otsider, the advantages of keeping this separate from the main article seem obvious. DGG (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE and re-merge back into the Cobain article. Too much conjecture.---Humanharmony2222 (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.What good is it to have a site, that is deicated to spreading facts and information, when it can be deleted? There is no reason to delete this article. Just because some people have diferent opinions, on the matter, is no reason to delete that opinion. There are MANY things, people may not agree with, in this world but, if we went around deleting opinions, that we have problems with, then what good is it to argue or debate anything? Last time I check, freedom of speech was still a factor, in this country. This article and EVERYTHING on this very site, is a form of freedom of speech. If this article gets silenced, then what else? There are some who believe the holocaust didnt happen. So, are we going to request the WWII page be takend down? Some people dont believe in Jesus Christ, does that mean a page about him, must be deleted too? Where does it end? I request that this page, does NOT fall to the hammer of deletion. Just because we all cant agree, doesnt mean we should start deleting those very opinions, we dont agree with.~~Lance aKa MonkeyBone316 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkeyBone316 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above comment is the first edit of a brand new account. JodyB_talk 03:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Ah, that explains the overly-defensive rhetoric. Good notation JodyB.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - recommend striking. Scarian ^Talk 10:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or rename to "Conspiracy theories about the death of Kurt Cobain" since that's what this article is. --Golbez (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I don't see how, I being a first time edit, should make what I say, less then what anyone else has said here. When did giving an opinion and thought about something, become a seniority issue? What I said, is a valid argument, about this very subject. Yeah, myself does believe that Kurt was murdered and I could make a WHOLE list of facts here, to further my belief and argument about that but, I wont because this isn't the place for it, the article where talking about deleting is. I don't agree with people who say Kurt killed himself, that doesn't mean Im going to go to a page that talks against what I believe and ask it to be deleted. I've read the article, I see no reason for it to be deleted. The only reason I see, from some of you here, is because you feel Kurt's death wasn't a murder. Your entitled to believe that, so am I, to my belief and this article has a right to be up and not be deleted. And Im NOT a conspiracy theorist. I don't believe in UFO's, Elvis is dead, Tupak is dead, but based on the years of researching I have conducted, I do NOT believe Kurt committed suicide. This article should remain, if not to be a subjected opinion on what some of you think here. Its freedom of speech and like I said, if this gets deleted, what else? You cant go around and delete or silence, everything you don't like, because you have a subjected opinion of what's being said. You want your right to say, think, and feel what you want, I want that right too.~Lance aKa MonkeyBone316 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkeyBone316 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-It doesn't really matter what anyone believes, per say, about the untimely death of Mr. Cobain. Was he murdered by someone else, or by himself? Doesn't matter. The real objective in this discussion is to decide if this article, as written, that is on Wikipedia, is in fact worthy of inclusion, beyond what is already stated at the Kurt Cobain main article. In my opinion, it is not. It is borderline WP:FRINGE, (and I realize that's only a guideline, not a policy). It is, for the most part, unsourced POV, with no real chance or ability to be anything more. Delete per nom. Keeper | 76 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, anyone can sign up and choose to edit and comment on an article. I am very disappointed to see any comments about how long someone has been a member because that should not matter. Everyone here was a new member at some point. The debate here is not whether Kurt Cobain was murdered it is whether the article should be deleted because someone decided that it was not necessary. Of course you can look through the Wikipedia guidelines and find reasons that many articles should be deleted but it is a fact that there is too much information here to be included on the Kurt Cobain page. This is no more a conspiracy theory than the Death of Marilyn Monroe or the Kennedy assassination theories which are not up for deletion. And I agree with the comment that Keeper and JodyB attacked. Everyone has a right to speak on this subject. Just because you have been a member longer does not give you the right act superior. Shelly 1979 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 2004 two highly respected investigative journalists from Rolling Stone Magazine, Ian Halperin and Max Wallace published, Love & Death: The Murder of Kurt Cobain. The book reached #18 on The New York Times Bestseller list [5] The topic of Cobain's death is a highly relevant topic as there is much controversy surrounding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.167.29 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article seems to meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, it has been covered my multiple reliable, independent sources and so is notable and there will be verifyable information out there to include in the article. There may be current original research and possible POV problems with the articles but these could be remidied and are not a reason for deletion in themselves. The article currently is a bit of a coatrack for conspiricy theroies but there is probably enough 'good' information out there for a reasonable article to be formed. Maybe the page should be merged back to Kurt Cobain but an AfD is not the place for that discussion. [[Guest9999 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beever's Doubling Rule[edit]

Non-notable and unsourced article on an obscure variant of Bridge. A Google search yielded no results, not a good sign of notability. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur; I also found nothing on Google. Additionally, Ben Beever doesn't even seem to do bridge, since the Wikipedia article says he's a juggler. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability through googling, and the article lacks sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much as I hate to agree with deletion. This users articles on bridge seem to be all original research and so not NPOV. This would also apply to users other bridge article contributions. i.e. Juggler's Club. I started to do a cleanup too! Oh well. Sting_au Talk 02:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Flatworm. I copied the material over to what seemed like an appropriate section; editors with a better knowledge of the subject should review for accuracy. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haptor[edit]

Should be merged into flatworm article. Who signs articles? Avruch ^Talk 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind to merge "Haptor" into "Flatworm", but why than is on Gyrodactylus salaris article a link "Haptor" to edit?! I reckon someone should have an eye on these "details" as well, instead only on new made articles because it is not the first time, where I do a job which is getting deleted shortly after! Please delete such "open-to-edit-links" in future. Xavierschmit ^Talk 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to be a content expert here - if Haptor is something that is unique and interesting, or common across species or something, then you could potentially expand the article into something encyclopedic. As it stands, its just a stub about the anatomy of a flatworm. I'm not sure why it was redlinked, but we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and I hope you continue to contribute. Avruch ^Talk 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can make a word a WP:REDLINK. Like this. Unfortunately, it is up to the editor following the redlink to start an article to make sure that the topic meets WP:N. I de-redlink terms when editing articles all the time (it used to be the case that people would make every person mentioned a redlink, for example), but there will always be articles that nobody has seen. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something called: the Veterinary medicine WikiProject. It might be interesting for this? But I'm not quite sure what it is, so it's probably not on me to make this judgment. Xavierschmit ^Talk 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly WP:ANATOMY, less possibly WP:TREE (but there is no subproject for the flatworm phylum). --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is extensive documention on Google Books and Google Scholar, although I note that it isn't a feature common to all flatworms, but just to Class Monogenea. (And that "haptor" seems to be a common OCR error for "Chapter" ...) The redlinks prohaptor and opisthaptor probably should be redirected to this article. There is even such a thing as a pseudohaptor. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Since there's already some discussion of the topic on Monogenea, and since they're apparently the only beasts that have them, it seems logical to merge this into that article. Tim Ross·^talk 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Tim Ross. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the two Tims above. Also, per Dhartung, prohaptor, opisthaptor and pseudohaptor should be redirects instead of redlinks (I can't imagine them ever becoming articles for anything else, for example band names). Keeper | 76 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created the redirects for prohaptor and pseudohaptor (which is why they aren't red anymore in this discussion, hope that's not too confusing). Keeper | 76 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Tanaka (manga artist)[edit]

Delete unsourced blp, with no indication that this artist or his manga is notable, so nn that we don't know when or where he was born. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —DAJF (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't even find any evidence that the manga is notable, much less the artist. Of course, I don't read Japanese, so if any Japanese-speakers have access to sources that show notability, I'm open to changing my mind. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search in Japanese reveals no hits for a mangaka of this name, although there is an anime director of the same name. Non-notable if not an outright hoax. --DAJF (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax - unless those kanji are incorrect, there's no record of him actually existing. Amazon lists only one book with that named attached, and it's a design textbook. Doceirias (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 13:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a few sites referencing the manga, but only on blogs and forum posts (one calling it "little-known but mildly amusing"). If it or he truly was notable I'd expect to find more English language references. I did find a reference to somebody of the same name on the Anime News Netweork site [[6]] but most of those credits are as Director of Photography, so I'm not convinced this is the same person. MorganaFiolett (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that this is not a hoax, as there was a 4-frame manga series called "Naku na! Tanaka-kun" written by "タナカヒロシ" (Tanaka Hiroshi in katakana) with a compilation book published in 1989. This is also mentioned on the Japanese Wiki "まんがライフ" (Manga Life) article[7] , but the writer does not have his own article. Still seems of extremely minor notability to me. --DAJF (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Delete Its not sourced and OR so there is no material to redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Field Marshal Styre[edit]

Delete no evidence that this Dr. Who character is notable, no sources, and the way it is written, if you weren't familiar with Dr. Who you may even think that this "person" was real. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Sontaran, he was the main villain in the story but barely seems worth a mention in List of Doctor Who villains (and List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens already links out to Sontaran). Q: Field Marshal or Field Major? --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as notable, but several editors raised reasonable issues about the article, including tone and citation of some claims per WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Whitehorn[edit]

Are criminals typically regarded as notable? I know that there is a 'major edit' tag on this page, but I think the community should decide based on what is here whether this person should be considered notable in and of herself. Perhaps, if she was a key member of any of the organisations of which she was supposedly a member, she should be mentioned in articles about those organisations. Avruch ^Talk 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Laura a criminal is really not the issue, since that statement itself doesn't conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Many, many "criminals" are featured in Wikipedia already because of their impact on society. Being labeled a criminal should never automatically disqualify an article from inclusion.

Laura was part of the Weathermen, a major underground organization that was involved in a number of "terrorist" activities that had a profound affect on the American psyche. If an organization was blowing up buildings today to protest the war in Iraq, you can be sure any of its members would be front page news. Wikipedia has already found her notable enough to include her on the Weatherman page at http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Weatherman_%28organization%29. The FBI certainly found her quite notable since they have a large number of documents on her. Several movie makers found her notable enough since she was profiled in a couple of documentaries. I'm not sure how or why we should judge if she was notable enough. Who are we to decide that she's less notable than many other Weathermen members who are included in Wikipedia. This is the beauty of Wikipedia, that you can find out detailed information about subjects that you can't get anywhere else. Censoring this article does no one any good. Especially in this case when a new Wikipedia member has been working on this article for the last few weeks and has been at the computer for over 8 hours today alone trying to get this article published. I strongly believe this article should remain because it is useful, informative and notable. Ubothell1 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your hard work and I don't think it should be completely deleted - but I do think that perhaps the subject is not notable enough individually for a separate article. The FBI has documents on a lot of people, this is not a very strong argument for notability - particularly since most of them are classified, and the rest are confidential prior to a FOIA request. You should investigate the possibility of moving some of this information into the Weatherman article if she is notable enough to be included there (a topic of discussion for the editors of that article). Avruch ^Talk 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a tricky one. I don't think just being one of the Weathermen automatically bequeaths notability. Some 50% of this article just recounts information that's in the group's article. Another bit is sort of her less-notable angle on the events. Then you have a WP:COATRACK-y bit of apologia obviously written by supporters, who have managed to keep her most notable activities out of the lead. I think I would prefer merger to a List of Weatherman members, where a paragraph profile might be appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and merge into List of Weatherman members per Dhartung. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With due consideration to those who have noted Whitehorn's connection to an organization for which there is already an article ("Weatherman(organization"), there is more to the biography of this living person than even that chapter of her life could convey. The entry as posted speaks to a still-unfolding life of activism, much of which postdates involvement in Weather. It's a phase of a life story that has been deemed substantial enough to warrant a full-length documentary film, among other things. Were this article to be subsumed under Weather, major content and relevance points would be forfeited. While there can always be improvements to an article, I favor giving this one a chance to realize those gains.--Historytrain (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once very notable, though not as notable as some of her comrades--and thus still notable. for WP purposes. The tone of the article is absurdly hagiographic, with considerable elements of coatrack. Someone who doesn't worship her should edit. DGG (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be POV work to be done on the article, I'd encourage a more welcoming approach to new posters than some of this language communicates. --Historytrain (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per both of Historytrain's comments. Don't bite the newcomers folks. And in addition, AfD is not really the place to talk about the tone of an article, that can be done on the article's talk page, or fixed oneself. Murderbike (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Cody[edit]

Delete nn bit part actress, no reliable sources just imdb, youtube, myspace, and her personal website. So nn we don't even know when or where she was born, red flags of non-notability among modern biographies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No major roles, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as meeting WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary N. Meeker[edit]

Non-notable individual, or no evidence of notability beyond a professional career. Avruch ^Talk 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fail to understand "no evidence of notability beyond a professional career." she is notable presumably because of a notable professional career. DGG (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She appears notable to me. Greater than 2 dozen publications in ERIC. Web of Science, which isn't really the place for this, includes "A Critique of 6 Measures for Assessing Creativity" by E. Cooper (1991) describing Meeker's test as "one of six popularly used measures of creativity". --Lquilter (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - she meets criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) --Paularblaster (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Balloonman (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiel McNaughton[edit]

Disputed notability of this person. I am uninvolved and cast no vote. Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See these other articles by the same author, SeanMorleyRoxs (talk · contribs):

Eve Torres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lena Yada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anastacia Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Liam Hemsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Harry McNaughton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vicky-Lee McIntyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dominic Ona-Ariki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) … Note: Added to this AfD by UsaSatsui (talk · contribs) at 22:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Schijf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Will Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lee Donoghue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sarah Thomson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some have dated PRODs, and others have already been WP:CSD#A7 deleted. —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 11:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And since when has that been a valid argument in AFD? We have a prolific author who doesn't know how to reference things properly. dramatic (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jimfbleak (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I'm not in favour of having articles on everyone who has ever appeared on Shortland St, but the actors in major roles do become celebrities in New Zealand. Most of the top 50 gHits are about him, and I could probably track down several magazine features too. dramatic (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you can find them, then you're welcome to add them … but without WP:Reliable sources for the WP:Verifiability of claims that the subject meets the WP:BIO criteria (being a "national celebrity" notwithstanding), the article violates WP:NOR and should be deleted … one reason for the AfD process is to allow time for improvements. :-) —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we now have independent references for his having a main cast role in a primetime TV show (I shouldn't have to justify the notability of Shortland Street here) and an independent feature film. That should be sufficient notability to retain the article. Yes, there is still some unreferenced material in there, but that is pretty much par for the course. If necessary, that material should be deleted, not the whole article.dramatic (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of the substantial coverage in independent reliable sources required by WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep/nomination withdrawn.

No Compromise (magazine)[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable magazine. I can't seem to find any independent reliable coverage about it, as seen here. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known animal liberation online magazine. Around 10,000 Google hits when searched with "magazine" and "direct action," and several mentions in Google books and Google scholar e.g. [8] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Scholar hit is probably enough, I think. Which Google search string got all those hits by the way? I couldn't find anything on news archive searches. • Lawrence Cohen 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I searched using — "no compromise" magazine "direct action". SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, withdrawing nom. The article didn't mention the direct action bit, which is how I overlooked it. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Robert C Prenic (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of Truth locations[edit]

Here are ten articles, all about locations mentioned in the fantasy novel Wizard's First Rule, the first book in The Sword of Truth series. All of them are trivial - I don't believe any of them are mentioned in the following books. In fact, most of them are only mentioned in passing in Wizard's First Rule. A number of them, such as Horner's Mill, quote directly and copiously from the novel without attribution: here's the source (pages 375-380 or so) for most of that article's text. Furthermore, all of these articles describe their topics from a fully in-universe standpoint; there's no consideration of what relevance these locations have to the real world, and there is unlikely to be any such improvement, primarily because these articles have no such relevance. Every single one of them describes a "throwaway" setting which is used once and discarded.

There are a lot more articles like this one, as observed by Pete.Hurd in this AfD. I'll be opening further AfDs as appropriate. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete fiction cruft, no encyclopedic content in any of these. Note, that I came across one, or two articles in collecting the list I posted in the Confessor AfD which did attempt to make an encyclopedic analysis of the topic of the article (I excluded them from the list I posted), none of these did. IMHO, the articles which discuss themes and other aspects of a notable import within the body of fiction ought to be merged into a very small number of articles. I havn't checked to see how many of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sword_of_Truth are still active participants, but perhaps their involvement ought to be actively solicited once the extreme cruft has been trimmed. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note also, there is a Sword of Truth wiki (with 939 articles!?!), it's not like the people fascinated by this fictional world have no other venue for their creative energy. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the SoT WikiProject appears to be inactive, with no discussion activity since February or so. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over the contributions of all users listed as members of the wikiproject on the project page, or members of Category:WikiProject Sword of Truth participants, see comments on talk page for this AfD for the non-exciting details if you're really bored. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Locations, weapons, or other plot elements receiving passing reference in a fictional work would need to satisfy WP:N for stand-alone articles to be justified. These appear to lack such substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources. To take a fictional work and create separate articles for every thing and every event in it is an admirable show of devotion, but amounts to "fanspew." Edison (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Edison, these are not independently notable, therefore they should not exist in separate articles. As per the nomination, they are entirely in-universe and arguably copyvios - therefore they should not be merged, just deleted. Hal peridol (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as fail WP:NOT#PLOT, & WP:FICT.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - All lack notability and referencing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These articles belong on a site dedicated to the Sword of Truth universe; they do not belong on Wikipedia. They have no RL notability. The Sword of Truth wiki is the proper place for them. Also, there seems to be a serious copyvio problem with some of these entries. Freederick (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Winfrey[edit]

Non-notable, other than being the father of Oprah Winfrey. Ckessler (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited, or reverse inherited. Keeper | 76 21:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He might be notable, but there are no sources as of yet to show this. Unless some are provided, he can be redirected (and merged if need be) to the Oprah article. I don't see a particular need to keep the history. I (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent notability, and notability is not inherited. His only real claim might have been the tell-all he was planning to write, but that was cancelled. --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge notable facts about his relationship with his daughter to Oprah Winfrey.Vice regent 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G11 for blatant advertising. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Builder Management Solutions[edit]

Advertisement-like article written by single issue COI account. No assertion of general notability. Avruch ^Talk 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem for a Handbag[edit]

This article should either be merged to the series article or to an article about the actress. Avruch ^Talk 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no merge. The idea that a particular episode of a TV series becomes notable because it happens to be the last TV appearance or role played by a particular actor is unsupportable. There is nothing here to merge into either a series article or the article on Dunne. Otto4711 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed cruft that was related to the actress because this article is supposed to be about the episode. No opinion on that, but we don't seem to have a category Category:Hill Street Blues episodes so I would guess that individual episodes are not notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Non-admin closure Tomj (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SimSANs[edit]

Advertisement written by single issue COI account (user name same as company name), no assertion of notability or sources. Avruch ^Talk 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Maxim per CSD G6. RMHED (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegalitarianism[edit]

Made up word priyanath talk 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. This word receives one (1) Ghit from a message board where, surprise, someone made up the word. priyanath talk 21:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. sidenote to Priyanath, there is no need to vote for something you nominated. Nominating it is, in itself, a "vote" for deletion. Keeper | 76 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear the screams of the vegetables, and they scream delete as neologism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, Stig Harder, am the author of this article. I'm the founder of http://www.fashion.net and a vegan. I recently coined the word 'vegalitarian' to give the concept of non-speciesist egalitarianism a much needed word that can be used by the proponents of the merger of animal rights with human rights. I am in the process of establishing www.vegalitarian.com to further make all of the past and current efforts in this regard well known. I also am in contact with Ingrid Newkirk of PETA, Peter Singer, the Vegan Society, and the Vegetarian Society and could bring these people and organizations into this discussion if needed. I would thoroughly appreciate if you would remove the tag suggesting the deletion of this article. Kind regards, Stig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shousokutsuu (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stig, the reason it's here is because it's seen as a non-notable neologism, if you'll forgive the alliteration. Please see WP:NEO and WP:N for details. An aside, if you'll forgive me for sounding rude, your status, beliefs, memberships and contacts have little to no weight here - an article must adhere to many things. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note here that Wikipedia is not for the promotion of a new website. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, I'm not intending to promote a website; I am also not using my position in order to convince you to keep my article. I was just identifying myself. What I am doing is giving a word to an already established idea. I can see from your earlier posts that you may disagree with the purpose of this article; is it possible that you may be biased against it, therewith compromising your ability to objectively judge its eligibility for inclusion on Wikipedia? Regards, Stig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.160.33 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making a personal accusation against "Dennis" will not further your cause, Stig. Please refrain from making comments and insinuations agianst another editor. You are welcome to contribute to wikipedia, however, "Vegalitarianism" is a word that you, admittedly, coined. By definition, that is a neologism and does not belong on Wikipedia. Thank you, Keeper | 76 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my post to Dennis was objective, not subjective; certainly not an accusation. If I can not use 'Vegalitarianism,' I suggest the title be changed to 'Non-speciesist Egalitarianism' until the new word, which describes this concept, is getting more wide-spread. -- Regards, Stig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shousokutsuu (talk• contribs) 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that someone will actually type Non-speciesist Egalitarianism as a potential Wikipedea search? Really? Both "terms" are neologisms. It isn't personal. It does not detract from your personal beliefs. Let it go, is my suggeston. Keeper | 76 23:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dennis The Tiger here Mr. Harder. Please keep in mind that not being in Wikipedia does not mean that you, your cause, your connections, or you claims, are not important to you. It only means that Wikipedia has standards for inclusion, as pointed out to you. This discussion will likely stay open for a maximum of 5 days, so please feel free to expand the article if you wish. I'm not saying that it will be kept, (at best, it will be moved to Wiktionary since Wikipedia is not a dictionary of terms) -- but really does that matter? Does being on Wikipedia validate your personal convictions somehow? Keeper | 76 22:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, veggies, but WP:NEO. Icestorm815 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article deserves the light of day; as you see in the text, many enlightened individuals throughout our past and in our present have suggested the amendment of human rights to include non-human animals as well. (The concept is fairly simple: if you acknowledge that dogs have feelings and that they can suffer, you acknowledge that non-human animals have feelings and can suffer, for dogs clearly aren't human.) I propose "Animal Egalitarianism" -- not a neologistic term. Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, Mr Which^???, not being the author of this "article", believe it should be speedy deleted, per an especially egregious violation of WP:NEO. Mr Which^??? 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Accordingly, I believe this should be speedily deleted per WP:SNOW, as the author himself has admitted that he made up the word. Mr Which ^??? 00:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new article at http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Animal_Egalitarianism -- Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have put this up for AFD as well. A neologism by any other phrasing is still a neologism - we are not for these. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a notable term. So delete it. I (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional/made up. • Lawrence Cohen 05:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I recently coined the word 'vegalitarian' to give the concept of non-speciesist egalitarianism a much needed word that can be used by the proponents of the merger of animal rights with human rights. I really have a hard time understanding the apparent opposition here to going a step further, beyond sexism and racism, by proctecting the rights of dogs and cats and other non-human animals to live the free lives that we ourselves live. -- Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stig, you may want to rephrase that. Many of us have major qualms about being accused of racism, sexism, or not wanting to protect the rights of animals, and by playing that card, you will probably not win people to your side. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NEO. This will help you understand how the fact that you admit to having "coined the word" seals the doom of this AfD. Mr Which ^??? 06:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Which, I have read WP:NEO. You could make an exception; the word is new, but the concept is several centuries old. It just needed a term. -- Regards, Stig Shousokutsuu (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, no. WP:NEO is very clear. And this AfD should be speedy closed per WP:SNOW. Mr Which ^??? 15:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- note to closing admin. If the result of this discussion is delete, please note that a duplicate copy of this exact article exists and was created by the same SPAuthor. Keeper | 76 16:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO Chris! _ct 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this neologism. Axl (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete I don't buy that every channel is notable - there has to be some reliable sourcing and it needs to be more than it exists. I couldn't verify either source listed without logging in and this [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.] recent AFD appears relevant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

This deletion was overturned to no consensus at deletion review: [9]. Splash - tk 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Screen Classics[edit]

I could not find a specific guideline about the notability of TV channels, but unless every TV channel automatically gets an article, there needs to be more than an announcement on broadcastermagazine.com about it. I couldn't find anything in google news which hints at this channel being notable, so I think it should be deleted. Minimaki (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is ridiculous, there's no reason whatsoever why this article should be deleted. This article has the right to be kept just like any other similar television channel article. Just because it is owned by a smaller company doesn't mean it is not notable. This article clearly explains what the channel is about and what it airs, it is widely available across Canada on most major cable companies systems, and there are references given by two separate companys discussing the channel. And just because it isn't mentioned within google news doesn't mean it's not notable, google doesn't pick up every web page out there. MusiMax (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...but.... Um, google generally picks up every article out there. And then some. I returned 1.8 million. But besides that, per WP:OUTCOMES, I'm weak about this one. The guidelines don't specifically address cable channels, but precedent seems to be to keep these. For example, Turner Classic Movies, and Turner Classic Movies (UK), not that I'm trying to evoke an other stuff exists argument. The station has been around for 4+ years, I suppose that can be accounted for as far as notability? Keeper | 76 21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mini and Max mean, I gather, to refer to returns from Google News, which, as a news aggregator, serves a function (and operates in a fashion) a bit different from that of the traditional Google search engine (that is not, to be sure, to suggest that one should draw any grand conclusions about the notability of this topic from the quantity of its G-news hits, but, instead, only to address a bit of confusion). Joe 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason to delete it. It's a TV channel, what's non-notable about that? Ben W Bell talk 21:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about notability as described on the WP:N page. Merely being a TV channel is not enough, as should also get clear from WP:NOT. --Minimaki (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a tv channel which there are already many many articles about tv channels that already exist, the article clearly explains what the channel is with a very objective view, there is no bias, it gives references from reliable and independent sources, the channel has been around for 4+ years, it's available across the country on most major cable systems. As you can see it is notable and there is no reason to delete it. MusiMax (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but WP:OTHERSTUFF - and what the article is missing currently is any hints why it is notable - I have not yet seen reliable and independent sources suggesting that. Basically, what I'm wondering is, how can the article get longer than its current 2 lines? What are the notable things one could possibly add to it? --Minimaki (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has reliable and independent sources... that's one of the reasons why it's notable... the fact that independent companies take the time to write an article about it makes it notable, they don't have to but they choose to because they find it notable themselves. What makes CMT Pure Country any more notable then this channel, it doesn't have any sources and it is about the same length? It's not hurting anyone to have this article stay, it's only helping, allowing readers to learn about this existing channel. If you take it away, then that's one less way for readers to learn about it, not to mention all the other web sites out there that take their info from Wikipedia. MusiMax (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, WP doesn't necessarily try to list every possible useful information - there's much better places in the net to have a list of each and every TV channel - and not deleting them may be harmful in more subtle ways. We also don't have an article on each business or each athlete or each character in each TV show... So to justify this article, in my opinion there needs to be sources on more than merely being yet another TV channel showing old movies. --Minimaki (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm convinced by the arguments to keep. • Lawrence Cohen 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable television channel. Nothing states that TV channels are inherently notable in any way, and this is no exception. WP:OUTCOMES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are neither policy nor guidelines - the existence of an article on one subject does not mean every other related subject has a "right" to an article. --Core desat 05:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no reliable cites exist that support notability. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are cites from Broadcaster and Mediacaster Magazines... both independent and reliable sources. MusiMax (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actar[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable biomedical/pharmaceutical sales company. Thay have a lack of external coverage, and therefore don't appear to be meeting our present notability standards. If you click on "Timeline" on that search, you'll see virtually all the press they have is stock reports, in a generic and repeating format, and no other independent coverage. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per good nomination. No assertion of notability, no sources, no reason to be here. Actar does not improve Wikipedia, therefore, Wikipedia should not improve Actar Keeper | 76 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Keeper76. NN company; no real cites. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CypherScript (programming language)[edit]

Non-notable scripting language. 7 ghits of which only 4 relate to the language, 2 of which are WP articles. Author delete prod with no reason given. -- WebHamster 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JavaScript syntax. The article states that CypherScript is another name for JavaScript, so the redirect is fitting. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources show that this neologism is notable or deserving of a redirect to Javascript, let alone an article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An alternate name for a variant of Javascript that... uh, doesn't exist. In fact, none of the Google hits (which should be numerous for a computer-related topic!) are relevant except the on-Wikipedia results - the French forum appears to be discussing an unrelated mIRC addon called "Cypherscript". Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.M. Patrick[edit]

A writer that seems to be accepted at various small process publications (such as the listed "50 Word Contests" for a hotel chain), but doesn't seem to receive any wide coverage or notability. the relevant searches on this name and various phrases like "writer" attached all seem to come up with older stories, such as those related to gold prospecting in the 1800s. Patrick, the modern writer, doesn't appear to meet our notability standards. Recommend delete. Additionally, COI concerns: the article was created by User:Jessempatrick, and a WHOIS of jmpatrick.com shows that JM Patrick the writer apparently is this Wikipedia editor; so it was an article created by the subject as well. • Lawrence Cohen 20:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per WP:COI, per WP:NN, and I'm sure others. Keeper | 76 21:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mochizuki Okushin[edit]

I was editing this article for a general cleanup, when I noticed that everything that apparently makes this person notable has been taken from Yuu Shirota. Couldn't find anything from searching the name 'Mochizuki Okushin', so I get the feeling this is just someone trying to look good. A^RendedWinter 20:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. It looks like someone took the text from the Yuu Shirota page and shifted it around under their name with their data. Delete as probable hoax, unless someone turns something rather significant up. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mochizuki was actually a class mate of Yuu Shirota, Yuu Shirota went toward his musical dream, mochizuki was more a bussiness major and he was part of all those musicals but was not a big celeb, Mochizuki was just a back up, just in case something happens to the main acts, you have to be a ture "otaku" to know this stuff.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Mochizuki_Okushin" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.224.1 (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently non-notable guy, no references, possibly a hoax. Karanacs (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination + NN + BLP + Wikipedia:Verifiability. I wonder whether this article would have qualified for a speedy delete? Anyhow, this should do.True theory (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; lack of sourcing. • Lawrence Cohen 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. I'm not sold on any of this. "Mochizuki"? That sounds more like a food than a name. JuJube (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. One of the keep votes was Useful information not available anywhere else. says it all really. Please see WP:ATA and WP:USEFUL. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar controller compatibility[edit]

Not an article or a list. Wikipedia is not a video game controller comparison guide. This is what gaming websites are for. Mr.Z-man 20:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per z-man and because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful information that is not really compiled elseware, merger into any one article makes no sense as multiple articles reference this information. Deletion of this would just end up embedding this large table into each article about each game, or a lengthy paragraph in each article re-explaining the same thing. Qapf (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: since when is being an article/list the criterion for keeping or deletion? This information has been covered non-trivially in multiple reliable sources and this therefore notable. Furthermore, there's not really a reasonable place for it to go. Oren0 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is what gaming websites are for." I did not mention notability. That is not the only inclusion criteria. Mr.Z-man 03:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a notable subject, I don't see any reason for it not to be included. I don't see how this could be considered game guide material by any stretch of the imagination. It's factual info related to hardware peripherals. I don't see any Wikipedia policy that this violates, therefore it should stay. Oren0 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's not kid ourselves. This isn't an article, it's a table, and it's less about the concept of guitar controller compatibility in general and more a quick check sheet for guitar controller compatibility within the Guitar Hero and Rock Band series. While the information is indeed very useful to the enthusiasts of these series, the content is too brief and vague for a subject that's so specific. It all could very well be implemented into other articles. Pele Merengue (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I should add, the information in this article is almost exclusively useful to enthusiasts. Nowhere in the article does it mention what companies manufacture which controllers and which guitars were developed for which games. And as it is now, there are large, unoccupied sections of the table where savvy gamers could just use common sense to determine compatibility -- there's no reason why an Xbox 360 controller should work with a PlayStation 2. But all of this unspecified information lost on a casual consumer who wouldn't know any better. This sort of information only makes sense to a very select group of people; no attempt is made at making the chart's purpose or content clear and understandable to a large variety of readers. Pele Merengue (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These are valid arguments for the table needing to be cleaned up and improved, but deleting it doesn't do either of these things. Instead, why not think of a way to convey the information, which is valuable, in a context which meshes with your designation of value in an article Qapf (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that it's not a proper article. But I think it's a neat and very handy table, and should go somewhere. Maybe on the Guitar Hero or Rock Band page? `Zozart ^.chat 07:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a comparison of game controllers, this can actually be useful. But, we could use some prose to make it a bit more understandable, and maybe add the fact that you can't use GH controllers with GF either. ViperSnake151 14:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does need more actual text added to clarify what it is discussing, but this is definitely not "just something for enthusiasts." KaneRobot 12:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it relevant for anyone not planning on playing one of the games? Mr.Z-man 18:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is [10] relevant for anyone without a strong background in math and science? Since when is specialized knowledge a criteria for keeping vs deleting? Kuronue | Talk 07:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, the sensible thing according to Wikipedia policies like WP:NOT#INFO would be to delete. WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument. Worse is, however, that it is not even useful. It tells the reader that the PS guitars are usable with the PS, the Wii guitar with the Wii and the 360 guitars with the 360. How is this useful? The very few exceptions that are listed could easily be covered in the prose in the articles about the relevant games. User:Krator (t c) 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information in this cumbersome table could very easily be conveyed with one sentence in the respective articles for the games. KyuzoGator (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article deals with more than one game and more than one type of controller. There are seperate articles just for other peripherals of games, like the PS3 SIXAXIS controller. Also, it is notable because it is part of one of the most popular games and uprising portion of the gaming industry in the US. Ryn2me (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, not only did I make no mention of notability as a deletion reason here but that is not the only inclusion criteria. Mr.Z-man 03:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What controllers do and do not work with Rock Band is a confusing subject in and of itself; the table helps clarify that as well as other potentially confusing bits. I think it should be expanded, in fact, to cover beat-game controllers of all kinds; for instance, the Singstar microphones don't work with Rock Band (I'm told) and that might be useful someplace. Kuronue | Talk 07:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important source of information. Wikipedia is a form of encyclopedia that allows users to gather information on any topic. A table with information regarding the compatability of guitar controllers is information that will be used more and more as this technology advances but if anyone disagrees with the facts that it should be kept then they do not understand the true meaning of or the concept behind wikipedia and also all encyclopedias. Tommo7 | Talk 20:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wanted to know this information so I came to Wikipedia to find it. This is the sort of data one expects to find, so it should be provided. Though it should probably be either merged into a existing article or fleshed out into a full article. Technical information regarding why one controller is incompatible or not is relevant to the development history of this product. If this tabular data was turned into a template, it could be hidden/shown as part of more relevant article. -Dr Haggis - Talk 16:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I stand corrected, KEEP...if we add information that you obviously can't use Guitar Hero controllers with Guitar Freaks for the PS2. Okay? ViperSnake151 14:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Compatibility of one game's controller with another game is certainly notable information, but I don't think every game's article needs an entire section on what does and doesn't work. Breaking the info off like this works for me. -- Norvy (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tabor (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information needs some reformatting to make it more user friendly. The question of merger is problematic as it incorporates information from several different games and looks to inform regarding all those games as well, indicating that the chart would be worthy of equal space in any Guitar Hero or Rock Band Article regardless of system. It is useful information to anyone who is not an enthusiast, but would want to know the compatibility of their equipment. Having sold millions of copies of the games mentioned, it seems to have a general appeal. --CKJ (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a section on PS3 controller compatability in the Guitar Hero (series) article that could be pared down and moved here. That would boost the prose content. The table could be pared down by, for example, removing Wii controllers from the table and replacing it with prose describing that because the Wii guitar interfaces with the Wii controllers, it is not compatible with any other game system. The article needs improvements, yes, but it isn't unsalvageable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was not only informative, it was really useful. Although you can find some of this info in other sites, it was a relief finding it in one section. I agree that the article should be reformatted and somewhat cleaned out, but in no way deleted. — HitokiriGaijin 14:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful information not available anywhere else. --72.202.150.92 (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful table, although it needs some more context. There are countless other examples on Wikipedia where the compatibilities and features of competing programs are depicted in a table. Search for "comparison of" for similar tables. Kyouryuu (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful reference that can't be easily found elsewhere on the internet that can help potential Guitar Hero players decide which guitar or version to get. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this is useful reference information, not likely to be found elsewhere in a concise format. Assuming that the folks who contribute this data do so honestly from actual experience, this is a much better way to obtain the information than reading endless appends to various individual gaming forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.128.208 (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is highly useful and I found it only here. It's another example of the "new guard" of editors who seem eager to convert Wikipedia into their version of the Encyclopedia Britannica. We built Wikipedia to include not exclude. "Not an article or a list." Nope. It's a big, fat, easy to read table. Leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.176.6.111 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 23:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normanby house[edit]

This is a non-notable article about a specific on-campus residential house. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable. What else is there to say? Keeper | 76 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable house, and isn't verified, so the article should be deleted. I (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under G11; article was created by company's marketing manager. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEUX Corporation Limited[edit]

Probable spamvert UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete with sentences like "Long aware that for many people it is no more than a consumer electronics producer, it has dedicated itself to projecting a new and more representative image that reflects the products we offer in the areas of lifestyle and technology." it qualifies for speedy as spam, if anyone else agrees with me. DGG (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPAM spam spam spam SPAM spam spam spam... Speedy delete, wonderful spam... (bloody vikings) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Fight Night 12[edit]

Speedy delete - deleted at AFD two days ago and almost immediately recreated. The only difference is that a non-reliable source has been added that announces a fight for which no contracts have been signed because the date and venue remain unconfirmed. An admin inexplicably declined the speedy so here we are again. Still violates WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unlike last time, there is verifiable information about a confirmed date and matchup from a reliable source (Dann Stupp is an expert in the field, and a sportswriter for Yahoo! Sports, the Dayton Daily News, MLB.com, and the San Francisco Chronicle). WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply anymore since the event is notable and guaranteed to take place. east.718 at 20:07, November 20, 2007
Weakest Possible Keep Agree w/East718 that MMAJunkie is a reliable source, but I'm not jazzed about the cited source specifically saying "contracts are not signed" and "no venue has been decided." Either way, we'll probably debate this out for a week or so and then the page will get re-created with newer verifiable information. Probably should keep it at this point, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if it gets deleted again. Tuckdogg (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable event. If you are unhappy with the amount of "references" it'll only take a few minutes to add some. --businessman332211 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a televised event sponsored by arguably the most prominent MMA institution in the world and the article has references. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Tuckdogg, the lack of a place and time also bother me, but east718 is right when he says the event is inevitable and that Stupp is a reliable source. hateless 11:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Frank[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable individual; nominating for deletion. • Lawrence Cohen 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keeper | 76 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 13:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per above, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete For reasons above--Areashands (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Galo Injairu[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable individual; nominating for deletion. I originally tagged it as a speedy, but I think it may be better for a wider review. • Lawrence Cohen 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a good guy, but not notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:rs. The website "cited", wwww.cips.org, does not mention Mr. Injairu in a search of their webpage. (not that they are necessarily a reliable source themselves, being a paid membership organization) Most likely, he's a paying member, which obviously does not equal notability. Keeper | 76 22:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, most people I know could have similar articles written about them.Earthdirt (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.zr[edit]

The country-code top level domain of a country that changed its name, and only ever had a handful of domain name registrations before being phased out. Wikipedia is not a directory, and I can't see any non self-published sources (i.e. anything but the IANA website) reporting on this. If it leaves a gap in a series, that's unfortunate, but necessary as I don't see the multiple non-trivial reliable published sources for standalone notability. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ccTLD's are a pretty rare thing. There are a limited number and there have been changes have ususally meant a drastic event has occurred. For historical purposes I think it should be kept. If a deletion occurs, I would suggest a redirect to .cd and an expanded note there. spryde | talk 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to .cd, which has wholly superseded it. (Contrast with .su, the TLD for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Remember them? still out there! --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no reason to delete this just because it is no longer in use. Keep for historical purposes, although I realize it probably will never achieve much more than stub class. Keeper | 76 22:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the stub, in concurrence with Keeper76. If anything, it comes up as historical interest, much like .su - even if .su had significantly more domains in the TLD. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Keeper76. And, if for nothing else, for consistency's sake; recognizing that .zr was technically separate from .cd is important for historical context and aids in navigation from the ccTLD template. -- Keith Lehwald (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd merge the information into .cd, and redirect it. I (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because something no longer is named as such or exists is not a good reason for deletion. I think that all country TLDs are notable. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't object to a keep, I just felt there wasn't really enough information to make a separate article warranted, unless .zr had some separate notability I wasn't aware of (along the lines of .to or .cx). --Dhartung | Talk 00:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - notable, but could easily be covered in the .cd article. Snigbrook (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough. jj137 (Talk) 02:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary, "if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest." This guideline applies, in a way. ♠TomasBat 00:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Aguilar[edit]

Delete - fails WP:BIO as an actor as he does not have significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions (six episodes on Rules of Engagement as "Busboy" or an appearance as "Willow's friend" in an episode of Buffy notwithstanding). Prod removed with a reference to building an article from his IMDB listing but in the absence of reliable sources of notability his article should go. Otto4711 (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as violating WP:BLP in lacking reliable sources, but the guy has over 2,000 Ghits. Rescue? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are four different Andrew Aguilars on IMDB alone. Ghits are for everything from musicians to chiropractors to high school football players to dead guys. Amazingly "Andrew Aguilar" seems to be a fairly common name. Otto4711 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tang Yuhan[edit]

Article on a Chinese doctor. nominated previously for deletion on the basis of notability, lack of reliable sources, and verifiability. The original discussion attracted little attention, and the closing admin thought that sources added in Chinese weren't reliable. After discussion at DRV, he remembered that foreign language sources can be reliable and agreed to relisting. We need to evaluate the Chinese sources (and any that can be found in English) to determine if this individual is notable and whether the specific sources are reliable. No opinion from me; I don't read Chinese. GRBerry 19:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC) As requested at DRV, I have specifically solicited input at the talk page for the wikiprojects on China and Hong Kong. GRBerry 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My Chinese is only intermediate level, but the sources seem to confirm what is in the article, and are from reliable sources like the People's Daily (the main newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party). I'd say that his accomplishments are enough to establish notability.--Danaman5 (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tang is the Honorary Dean of Ningbo University Medical School, and received two honorary titles from Ningbo Municipality Government and Zhejiang Province Government for his contributions to Ningbo education. These facts have proved his notability as a benefactor. --Neo-Jay (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Chinese sources confirm what the article says. His claim to notability is tenuous, but I'm inclined to go with a weak keep for the combination of him having been president of the Hong Kong Chinese Medical Association and then having a hospital named after him. The article needs to get rid of its peacock words though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though a poorly written article, President of the Hong Kong Chinese Medical Association is notable. That the source is confirmed by those who know the language is therefore sufficient. DGG (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Attributed to reputable sources. Eurozone AA (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7 and full of POV.--JForget 02:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penn-Trafford Drumline[edit]

Non notable, possibly violates WP:BLP Eatcacti (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A sourced mention might be appropriate in Penn-Trafford School District. --Dhartung | Talk 21:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:BLP. It's unencyclopedic, and unsourced. I concur that a mention may be worthwhile under the district's article. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for violations of WP:BLP and failure to show verifiability of the content. If a reference is found, it could be mentioned in the article on the school or school district. Edison (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's both an A7 AND an attack page... on minors no less. No reason to host this for another second. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Balloonman (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Press Malayalam[edit]

Removed prod, notability concerns + verifiability of the article. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for sourcing reasons. I'm not convinced that this was a non-notable group, but it needs sources sources sources. If this is kept, please remove the ridiculous list of obscure names at the end of the article. Keeper | 76 22:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Balloonman (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome[edit]

Article about a non notable neologism or protologism, created and used in a narrow area of popular culture. As a rule, Wikipedia doesn't have articles on neologisms unless widely adopted. See WP:NEO _→AzaToth 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an interesting TV trope (see Chuck Cunningham Syndrome), and has probably been written about under different terminology, but with the one source provided it's an unnotable protologism. We need better sourcing about the topic itself to have an article, not just one person's idea of what to call it. The CCS article was changed into something more encyclopedic, so there's a possibility for a restructuring here, too. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - term looks to be in wide use and in fairly scholarly circles, like MIT for instance. It's weak but the phenomenon is well known enough to warrant an article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the title is great, but I think that the phenomenon is worthy of note. Since it doesn't only apply to soap operas, and not only rapidly aging, maybe rename it to something more neutral about age modification in television. I'm not creative enough to put forth a suggestion though. I (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed - it's in wide use and a notable television phenomenon - remarks about soap and sitcom kids going from crayons to a bustline are as widespread as remarks about the Darrin Stephens and Chuck Cunningham events. PMA (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Leandro High School[edit]

Nothing is asserted (let alone sourced) about the notability of this school. Goochelaar (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We treat secondary schools as notable usually (See WP:OUTCOMES). I have also found additional material concerning this school and semi-recent racial tensions. I am trying to find a better URL than the one I have. spryde | talk 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep ~~more reliable sources~~ Better sourced now Keeper | 76 16:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC). ~~On a demographic note, the dems listed only add up to 70%. Are the other 30% Klingon? Martian? Ukrainian? My point is, it needs cleanup, not deletion~~ Fixed this myself Keeper | 76 16:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC) . Keeper[reply]
- Thanks for the update on demographics. Personally, I was hoping that it was a large percentage of illegal Klingon aliens that someone was trying to hide, but your numbers work just as well. Alansohn (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable alumni and other school accomplishments, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. I will get on the demographic data soon. Alansohn (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school is notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the nominator I appreciate the effort in sourcing and adding data, but I fail to understand how a school is notable because of its alumni (as notability is not inherited) or because it had some internal problems (every apartment building has them, now and again). As for WP:OUTCOMES, it nowhere says that school, secondary or otherwise, are inherently notable (they have to comply with general notability guidelines); it just gives some data about deletion debates. Goochelaar (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with you on inherited notability. The notable alumni are notable in large part due to their attendance at San Leandro High School. Obviously, not all students are notable simply because they attended SLHS, but these are just some of the students where there is evidence of their accomplishments. As with places, politicians and highways, WP:OUTCOMES simply reflects the massive weight of evidence that all such schools are notable and seeks to avoid wasting time of all involved trying to argue a case that seems to be long settled. the results of this AfD will only add to that body of evidence on high school notability. I don't have any reason to believer that your nomination was in anything other than good faith; however, the longstanding precedent on high school notability and the reliable and verifiable sources provided meet the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sigh. Like army surplus spam from the Spanish-American war, I see the same High School AfD debates arguments endlessly rehashed. So I'll once again reiterate my own. As there is no consensus on High School notability, I use my personal criteria. I find this High School sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to Alansohn and RJHall Ok, apparently, being an European, there is a special relevance high schools have in American culture I am not able to gauge or judge (and I am not meaning this ironically). In my opinion, a particular high school might be notable because it has been cited as giving rise to a particular didactic method, as having been the place of some known occurrence, or even as being housed in a very peculiar building (or because most pupils are Klingon!). I stand my opinion, but I acknowledge that the consensus seems to be contrary to my interpretation, so I am somewhat grudgingly inclined to withdraw my nomination. Goochelaar (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per improvements in article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short Pump Elementary School[edit]

This was deleted once previously by proposed deletion, re-created, and proposed for deletion again. Since prodding twice is invalid, we go to AfD. The prod reason given this time was "no evidence of notability"; similar notability concerns were raised the previous time, too. Although this is mostly a procedural nomination, these concerns seem valid to me, barring evidence to the contrary. — TKD::Talk 18:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no reliabe sources for establishement of notability in a verifiable manner. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a notable elementary school. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable enough for me. Zginder (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The authors have improved the article since it was nominated and is now undeniably notable. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 14:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. does not assert notability besides saying "we're great." (more or less). Keeper | 76 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC) changing position to Keep based on recent additions to article, that IMO, assert notability per WP:OUTCOMES, specifically educational institutions that have won academic awards in their respective field, (albeit Elementary, still notable). Keeper | 76 19:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please hold on because it is still ghetting work. Im trying to work on it as hard as is can. Please help me on it thanks Rox^mysoxo::Talk To Me —Preceding comment was added at 23:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination will last for at least 5 days (November 25). — TKD::Talk 06:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of wine terms[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. These terms belong in a category, and "List of wine terms" would be the same thing as it is now. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- there are 79 glossaries listed at Special:Prefixindex/Glossary, plus more where "Glossary" is not the first term. Let's make a guideline first, then apply it evenly to all glossaries, rather than make an ad hoc decision on an arbitary one of them. Matchups (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My understanding is that we already have an official policy for this - WP:NOT#DICDEF: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." This seems pretty clear to me.--Michig (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~You must be joking.~~ The saying you quote: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" WP:NOT#DICT refers to policy about short articles which define a single word or indiscriminate collections of information, this clearly is neither. This is an excellent example of a list WP:LIST which can be used for navigation and information. Please see WP:SAL, below is an excerpt from the guideline:

"There are a number of formats currently used on Wikipedia, both generalized and specialized, for articles that are lists. (...) Formats for specialized lists include: (...) 2. glossaries, a type of annotated list, where the annotations are definitions of the list's entries, such as Glossary of philosophical isms"

Why would there be a guideline for glossaries if there was not a place for them on Wikipedia?:--Earthdirt (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No I wasn't joking, and please try to keep your comments civil. WP:DICT stated until recently that lists of definitions of words (as opposed to lists of related articles) are against guidelines, but someone has recently changed that. Someone should really sort the guidelines out so that we can simply apply them consistently in these discussions rather than having to debate them - maybe acceptable articles would then not be nominated. Many of the entries in this glossary are dictionary definitions that are not links to other articles, but I've removed my vote of delete, as I'm not that bothered either way.--Michig (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Sorry if you thought I was attacking you Michig, I was actually referring to the deletion nomination for this article in general, rather than your comment in particular, the order just got a bit messed up. I am not familiar with the past wording of WP:DICT, esspecially since that would so clearly contradict WP:LIST and WP:SAL, there does seem to be some be a widespread misunderstanding of lists on Wikipedia.Earthdirt (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Consuelo D'Guiche (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Earthdirt. Also, note on WP:NOT#DICT: Descriptive articles about languages, dialects or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney or Leet) are desirable. --Enhanceddownloadbird (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A "descriptive article" is not the same as a list of word definitions.--Michig (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful per WP:LIST. Have not similar cases been transwikied to Wiktionary and now exist twofold? MURGH ^disc. 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Matchups has noted Wikipedia has many valid and useful glossary articles. Feel free to peruse the Portal:List of glossaries for more examples. As a member of the Wine Project I refer to this list often for aid in linking terms like blending, dégorgement, legs, etc that don't have an article because they would be nothing more than a dicdef. Having this article saves us easily from needing 15-20 dicdef stub articles and that is a benefit that you simply can not get from a category. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SAL under the heading glossaries "being used primarily for navigational purposes or for developing Wikipedia content (redlinks), and whether readers are mostly looking for a specific topic, a group of related topics, or just browsing." Also some terms wouldn't be fit for a category such as "Young", "Extra dry" or "Split" nor having the terms placed in Wiktionary.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fortified keep A good example of how a list should look like to fullfill wp:list & wp:sal--victor falk (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sirex98 and Agne27. Keeper | 76 22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valuable collection of information useful as an adjunct to Wine and related articles. Fg2 (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Viriyayuthakorn[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, the article is about a poker player with no significance tournament results, has only one World Series of Poker money finish, 9th in the 2004 WSOP $1,500 No-Limit Hold'em ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 17:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is also an orphan and has no references other than the Hendon Mob player database. --kingboyk (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - poker players have been treated as athletes previously for purposes of WP:BIO and this guy appears to qualify as a competitor who has "played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." While his TV time has been negligible he's been playing at a relatively high level for several years, including winning an event ata major tournament series as far back as 2001. Otto4711 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Viriy weak keep, just barely on the basis of the tournament win Otto4711 found. Delete. Small 1st prize indicates that the field in his one win wasn't that large. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~even weaker keep~~ See comment below /because I don't personally think of poker as sport and I hate when ESPN puts poker games on television. But I digress, the link found by Otto4711 shows him victorious as a pro, which helps establish his notability. Not that anyone is going to know how to spell Viriyayuthakorn for a search. Is "Jason V" a redirect? ... Oh! I just checked! It is! It is! Amazing.... Keeper | 76 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly poker players are not athletes and never have been treated as such here, for obvious reasons: "played in..." is a totally ludicrous criteria as anyone can enter a WSOP event. We didn't make thousands of stubs for everyone who entered the WSOP main event last year! So the fact he has played means nothing. His one victory and dozen middling finishes do get him close to notability, but his simply fails WP:BIO. There are not multiple published works dedicated to him. There appears to be one write-up on Pokerpages regarding his 2001 win. That just isn't enough to merit an article at this point -- though he certainly could merit one in the future. 2005 (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that every person who played in the main event warrants a stub article. But, not to pull a WP:WAX, if a football player with one pro game under his belt is considered notable then a professional poker player (for whom the "athlete" section of WP:BIO is the closest we have to a formalized standard) who's been playing at top levels for several years probably ought to be considered notable as well. Otto4711 (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did just suggest that. The criteria in WP:BIO for the athletes plainly is not relevant here. Entering a poker tournament is in no way similar to playing even one down in a pro football game. A fan can't just come down from the stands an play football, but anybody can enter an event. So simply playing is no criteria at all. Athletes does not apply. The "Entertainers" section of BIO is better, though still flawed... "With significant roles... Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions... Has a large fan base." But still that isn't appropriate since "fans" don't matter in poker, and neither does innovation particularly. The two criteria that primarily matter are success/winning/make money, and non-trivial focus of third party media. This is why some less successful players who get lots of media coverage will merit an article sometimes when anonymous/plodder type folks who make money sometimes won't. In this case, he has enough success to clearly not be a dilettante, but he simply doesn't have third party media coverage. Thus the operative part of WP:BIO is very clear: "The person must have been the subject of published secondary source material... If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability... Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." This person has much trivial coverage (statistic sites), but he has not been the subject of MULTIPLE published material. He has ONE significant article that focuses largely on him (but even that is covering an event he won, rather than a profile of him). It seems to me that while he does fall just a bit short of BIO, he clearly does fall short (until someone can find at least two significant published things about him). 2005 (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I didn't actually suggest starting several thousand stubs, but I guess if it makes you feel better to say I did I really don't care enough about this guy to keep correcting you. Otto4711 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind theoretical notability... where's the reliable sources? --kingboyk (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did start a discussion at the Wikipedia Poker project about this, with aim to codify poker bios a bit better since they aren't covered more spcifically in WP:BIO, even though the general criteria does cover the situation pretty well. 2005 (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His victory isn't at a major poker tournament. Binions World Poker Open is simply a $1000 buy in--not a major event (ala those events identified by the project at Template:Major Poker Tournaments.) I would compare this guy not to a professional athlete, but rather to a non-notable actor who had a decent role in a non-notable movie.Balloonman (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I certainly view the WPO win as a "major tournament". That template is a poor one, as the this WPO event is about ten times more "major" than the Ultimate Poker Challenge, which has no business on a "major" list. It is the same status as the US Poker Championship, and actually probably more "major" than that. Still, a major tournament win alone doesn't merit an article, or put another way, we certainly should not make an article for every Ultimate Poker Challenge winner. 2005 (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, I haven't really looked at that template that closely, but UPC definately isnt a major tournament. A major tournament, IMHO, by definition is one where the major poker superstars might ask, "Are you going to XXX." If the tournament is a weekly event or some such, then it isn't a major tournament. It is a reoccuring tournament.Balloonman (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know this doesn't make us the arbitors of poker nobility, but 2005, Sirex98 and I are the three most active voices at the Wikiproject Poker... and all three of us fail to see this guy as notable.Balloonman (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and change position. You're right. Being an active voice anywhere on WP does not make you an arbitor of nobility, or notability, or knowability. Maybe you are "active" there to clean it out with loads of AfD nominations. (I know that isn't true though, I checked). Needless to say, you discussion here has swayed me from a teetering weak keep to Delete., especially the case made by 2005. Happy editing, (and for you Americans, you know who you are, Happy Thanksgiving. Keeper | 76 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do a pretty good job of voting what we believe to be notable---which includes arguing for the inclusion of many articles brought to AFD and the deletion of some articles brought to AFD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stompy[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MADEUP. Can't find a definition for this word anywhere. Even if it were a real definition, it certainly doesn't belong in wikipedia A^RendedWinter 16:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If sourced, it would be {{Copy to Wiktionary}} then Delete. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll just go with WP:DICDEF, although there's lot's of other things to support deletion of the article. I (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very entertaining, but delete none the less. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sameh El-Shahat[edit]

Notability not established: the links are not by independent sources, or if they are, they do not assert any notability of the subject (e.g. an editorial piece where he is quoted as dining with the editor ?!) Raistlin (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raistlin, I believe that Time Out and NYT are unbiased sources and the fact that the author had dinner where the subject was present does not make that article biased. As for notability, I believe we can assume that the fact Thomas Friedman (whether or not we agree with his views) is a respectable and notable journalist and knows of the importance of the subject Sameh El-Shahat and respects him and his opinion to the point writing an entire editorial about it. It is notable that he wasn't lauding El-Shahat's work, please do bear that in mind.

I did take out the NYT quote if that is the reason for deletion

I live in London and I can tell you that this guy is very respected amongst art collectors (who collect his pieces as art). On the net, he seems to be googled a lot, not only for his furniture, but for his views as well.

It would be a shame if there wasn't some information about him on Wiki.

Best

Artisticcc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artisticcc (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see point by point the citations used to claim notability:

[11] an article on "Time Out", which is not exactly a premier art magazine, which interviews him and another person
[12] Biography on a gallery of arts
[13] Editorial by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times where he is deemed "One guest, Sameh El-Shahat, a furniture designer".
[14] his own website
[15] Letter he wrote to the Times Newspaper

Google searching turns out a handful of results. So, please, substantiate, modify the article, or this is a snowball delete in my opinion. --Raistlin (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; with a total of 25 unique Google hits, only one that I could remotely refer to as notable and non-trivial (the Time Out Dubai article), I don't think he meets WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent reliable sources are found substantively treating the subject. Google news and books return no results whatever. I also checked various London based newspapers including The Times of London, The Telegraph and The Guardian. The burden is, of course, on the creator. We cannot "assume" anything Artisticcc. We must have proper sourcing verifying the content and sufficient to show notability of the subject, or an article should not exist.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys,

Point taken. He is an artist of growing repute and as such there are not as many sources available about him as Newson or Le Corbusier for example. I did find an article which is mostly dedicated to him in the Gulf News newspaper, which is the most respected English Language publication of the Gulf which I added (http://archive.gulfnews.com/weekend/arts/10153407.html ). I believe it shows notability. I took away the bit about his painting as the artist himself does not want to publicise it. I also altered the shape pf the article.

As for the comments by Thomas Friedman, I believe that a good reason why he did not say "world famous furniture designer Sameh El-Shahat" is because it is really beyond the scope of the article. However, it shows the furniture designer to be pre-eminent enough to have his opinion taken on subjects outside his speciality by one of the most respected journalists in the world today.

Let me know what you think and I thank you both for highlighting these points. I hope you will not delete it after the changes.

Best

Artisticcc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artisticcc (talk • contribs) 10:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Artisticcc (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am sorry, it seems that i did not sign my last 2 previous entries for which i apologise. I truly hope that the article on El-Shahat will be removed from the Articles for Deletion category today. Artisticcc Artisticcc (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD A7. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pentium Nine[edit]

Not notable. db-nn tag was removed by an IP editor who added some possible justification of notability, but I'm not convinced Matchups (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 (db-band). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Crown of Stars (series). In regards to Jay's comment, my own practice is to delete an article and recreate it as a redirect, which helps prevent reverts. If there's a need to access a deleted article's history in the future, there are people who can provide it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liathano[edit]

Fictional character with no claim of meeting WP:FICTION in article. I had redirected this article to the one on the series, as per WP:FICTION, but this was reverted by another editor. Rather than get into an edit war, I'd like a consensus on what to do. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I've recently redirected Prince of Dogs and King's Dragon to the same article, it might be worth covering them in the same nom. they're all the creation of one user. I've left a talk page message explaining the various guidance on fictional works, concepts and characters. They're useful search terms, stick a {{R from related word}} on them once redirected. Hiding Talk 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The redirection was an appropriate action for the article, and I support redirecting it again. I (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Reverting is the main reason why I think an AFD should never close as redirect. If we aren't keeping any content the only reason to keep the history is to allow some one to revert, which we don't want. Jay32183 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can think of a couple of reasons why we would want the history. Consensus can change and the GFDL. Reversion can be dealt with by people watching the pages, deletion should not be punishment, we aren't typically preventative on Wikipedia, and these are useful search terms. The issue of reversion, more to the point, isn't settled by deletion, which can be reverted through recreation. The solution to that is typically protection, which can also be applied to redirects. So I don't see any value in that argument for deletion. Hiding Talk 10:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability and a complete lack of real world information as required by WP:FICT. The article is essentially an extended plot summary - which Wikipedia is not.[[Guest9999 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect all to List of Daria episodes and possibly merge by interested editors. I'll leave a note for this AFD on the respective talk pages, which would also be the first place to bring up sources and a case for recreating specific episode articles. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esteemsters[edit]

Every single episode of this television show does not need its own article. None have established notability or real world relevance outside of show and are mostly fancruft and unnecessary trivia items. The only outside links for each episode are the TV.com and IMDB links, and then multiple links to a van site. The basic info for the episodes is covered by List of Daria episodes. Collectonian (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sepcific information that would flesh the list out but not overload it, and then redirect to all to List of Daria episodes, adding {{R from merge}} to redirects as well. Useful search terms, in keeping with guidance and prevents recreation. Hiding Talk 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question of notablitity has been rendered subjective by those who seek to delete and redirect articles on television episodes, so that they can't be upgraded. Tagging them all for deletion is nothing more than a spiteful effort against those of us who want to save and improve the articles. ----DanTD (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bunk There is virtually NOTHING subjective about the notability guidelines, and there is no justification at all for you to call the nomination spiteful. If you can honestly say you have read and understood the entirety of the relevant notability guidelines (which are at WP:NOTABLE, WP:FILM and WP:FICTION, unless someone's come up with one specifically for television shows without my noticing it), then and only then do you have any foundation for arguing with this nomination. If you haven't you are unable to debate knowledgeably and are nothing but the howling voice of ignorance. Save and improve the articles on wikia [16] or some similar service; they have no place here. Deltopia

Reply "Bunk," NOTHING! The people who've been crusading to delete articles often change their mind about what makes them notable, and how to prevent them from being deleted, and frequently call for MORE obstacles to writing them. I added something from the real world to one episode of Daria, but it never phased the deletionists. They couldn't care less, because deleting articles is just something for them to do. As for saving and improving the articles on Wikia, that has proven to be a dismal failure. ----DanTD (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Daria episodes per Hiding because of (non-established and therefore perceived) non-notability, but leave a note on the talk page to encourage merging as an editorial process. I'm open to recreation of these articles if significant real-world information are added (which can be very hard for cartoon series and would therefore seem unlikely). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Daria episodes per WP:EPISODE. Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep =CJK= 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by =CJK= (talk • contribs)

Care to provide any sort of rationale? I (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are not notable. Therefore, under WP:EPISODE, the first attempt should be redirecting them, and only as a last resort AfD. Therefore, they should all be redirected to List of Daria episodes, and editors should merge as they see fit. I would make an exception for the pilot however, as that is usually able to be sourced much more easily than others. I (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soleil, Do you even realize that the pilot episode is the unaired black & white film short Sealed With a Kick? In any case, the articles are notable. Esteemsters is the first episode. Boxing Daria is the last episode. Others set the tone for the rest of the series. And furthermore, before Collectonian tagged them all for deletion, I added a real world note to one of them. It's getting to the point where you can't even mention a TV show without some snob tagging all the articles connected to it for deletion, redirection, or merging. ----DanTD (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually associate pilot with the first episode. So in this case, the first episode would be kept. And no, the articles are not notable. They need significant coverage on each article by independant sources. These articles do not have it. I (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites are independent sources, even if they're biased. Somebody else who supports the deletion of articles mentioned to me that articles on episodes of The Simpsons were saved from deletion by the fans a few years back. If they faced today's standards back then, those articles would be gone too. And what's sad is that I'm fully aware that many of them have to be improved, but deleting and/or redirecting them will take that opportunity away. ----DanTD (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage by fan sites does not make something notable. That wouldn't even make sense. I could set up a fansite for a play I perform at the local park to the squirrels, but that wouldn't make it notable. I (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hand me that crap. I didn't say anything about notablity this time. I was talking about the independence of a source. Fans of The Simpsons were able to improve the articles because they had an opportunity, which is being taken away now. Fansites should be considered vaild sources. Before you decide whether an episode article is valid or not, you should get your facts straight about which episode is which. ----DanTD (talk)

A fansite, whether or not you believe it is independant, does not grant something notability, which is the criteria for inclusion that these articles fail. And most of the Simpsons episodes have enough real world information (all of the ones in season 8 are GA or Featured) to show that there is a great possibility that there will be more. None of this have it. Show some sources that indicate improvement is possible, otherwise there is no reason to suspect it it. I (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I honestly think that if a little bit of effort was put in, the episodes of Daria there are currently articles for, (and ones there aren't) could be created and could become what alot perceive as "notable", along with "real world references" included in the article. Alot of the episode titles of Daria are puns on movies and TV show titles, so these titles could be determined and put under appropriate headings and such, along with other gathered information. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for, after all? To provide free encyclopedic information to anyone who wants to read it? We shouldn't look for ways to delete articles, unless they're just terrible, unanimously considered as non-notable and have little to no relevant or simple information in them at all. I think, as I have mentioned, that if effort was put in to improve the quality of these episode articles, they could then be considered worth keeping and notable, and cover information the List of Daria episodes page would be unfit to cover due to general summarisation of what the episode is about, and not in-depth information that such episode pages could actually provide. User:Ss112 07:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see every Sopranos episode has an article, most would fail WP:EPISODE also most of the Lost episodes fail WP:EPISODE is anybody going to tag them for AfD? RMHED (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that any Sopranos or Lost episode should be redirected or deleted, please feel free to nominate them. Saying that a crappy article should be kept because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not persuasive. Otto4711 (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that these Daria episode articles shouldn't be deleted, I'm just saying there are much bigger more prominent violators of WP:EPISODE. Strange how nobody goes after them isn't it. RMHED (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Lost and The Sopranos have been the subject of critical attention of several orders of magnitude greater than that focused on Daria. It is more likely, although not guaranteed, that episodes of the former two are going to have sourcing that attests to their individual notability. Otto4711 (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So EVERY episode of Lost and The Sopranos is likely to meet WP:EPISODE? Somehow I doubt it, a few of them might, but that's all. RMHED (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if every episode of those series meets WP:EPISODE. Nor do I care if every episode of those series meets WP:EPISODE, because it is not relevant to this dicussion, which is whether or not these episodes meet WP:EPISODE. Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Daria episodes unless and until episodes satisfy WP:EPISODE. RMHED (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true I've mentioned the real world information here, but I overlooked the fact that there's also some in the episode College Bored, like the fact that there really is a Manatee College. You people are all saboteurs, plain and simple! ----DanTD (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't real world context. There needs to be information about the development and the reception. Making reference to something real does not determine notability. Jay32183 (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That lie has been given by TTN with a Supernatural episode. He deleted it anyway. In any case, you can't tell me that the existance of a real "Manatee College" in College Bored and Daria quoting William Tecumseh Sherman in Boxing Daria isn't "real world context." ----DanTD (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TTN is 100% correct in assessing episode articles. There needs to be significant coverage beyond plot, that's what real world context means. A show referencing the real world is part of the plot, therefore can't be real world context. We need the real world talking about the episode, not the episode talking about the real world. Jay32183 (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per WP:EPISODE guidelines. I see no need for complete removal of material that can be merged to a 'list of' article. I shall further not that a lack of sources and references is NOT a reason for deletion-- it is a reason to add cleanup tags. Jtrainor (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clean up tags are not magical, if there are no sources out there, no sources will be found. It is not the responsibility of those wishing to delete material to demonstrate a lack of sources, but the responsibility of those wishing to add, restore, or retain material to provide sources, WP:PROVEIT. A lack of sources is the ultimate reason to delete an article because no amount of effort can ever fix the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per WP:EPISODE. Will ^(talk) 20:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze's Dimension[edit]

Delete and restart over Very shoddy looking article, in reality shouldn't this article be about the southern island in sonic rush adventure?Wolly da wanderer (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't start over - non-notable fictional dimension that according to the character's article is disputed within canon coupled with WP:OR about characters from the dimension whose existence is speculated. Otto4711 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Otto4711. JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fictional world that by the article's own admission may not exist? Double non-notable! Pagra shtak 14:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayme McLean[edit]

strong/speedy delete - WP:NOTE and WP:SPAM - 20 yr old star with no non-wiki google references? Several related articles that were speedy deleted or are currently under afd include Grasscutters (see User_talk:Dankeat), Grasscutters FC. Found this page due to vandalism to Heat pump. User A1 (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced bio. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Clown Bad Dub II[edit]

Non-notable compilation album TubeWorld (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Clown Bad Dub 3[edit]

Non-notable compilation album TubeWorld (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Clown Bad Dub 4[edit]

Non-notable compilation album TubeWorld (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Grave Escape[edit]

Prod'd a week ago the prod was removed. Nothing to establish notabilty. Article is nothing more then a long plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 16:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only plot summary plus trivia. JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PLOT. No evidence of any real-world significance. shoeofdeath (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, but clean up. Davewild (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transnational Radical Party[edit]

This article does not cite references to back up its assertion of notability or its claims of membership, does not cite official participation in any governing body, provide any verification of 'affiliation' with the United Nations and on the talk page is an allegation that the article is lifted largely intact from the website of the organisation. Problem tags are generally old, no active discussion on the talk page indicating likelihood of revision/improvement. Avruch ^Talk 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have just added the information for its ECOSOC status which is legitimate (note that (only) 139 organizations have such a status). Moreover I would advocate keeping this article, the history of Radicalism in Italy is very confusing and this article is necessary to explain the difference between the Radical Party, TRP and the current Italian Radicals. C mon (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a transnational party with elected members in several European parliaments, as well as the continuation of the Italian Radical Party and a non governamental organization. It is strange to delete the article of TRP some days after it succeded in its major goal: the moratorium of capital punishment through the UN Assembly. --Checco (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide citations to either assertion? i.e. evidence that elected MPs list this as their party affilitation, articles by news organizations attributing a resolution in the UNGA to efforts by TRP? Note that the UN can't create a world moratorium and doesn't itself execute criminals (aside from the ICC, potentially), its resolutions in this area are generally non-binding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avruch (talk • contribs) 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not binding, but that was the major goal of PRT, which is represented in the Italian government by Minister Emma Bonino and in Parliament by many MPs (there is a list on the TRP website somewhere, including those not from Italy, see for instance this), among which those organized in the Italian Radicals. Maybe you are not aware of the history of the Radical Party in Italy, which was transformed in PRT in 1989. Then Italian Radicals organized themselves in several lists (Lista Pannella, Lista Bonino...) and finally in the Italian Radicals. As the PRT is a transnational party functioning as a NGO, also members of other parties, such as Forza Italia, the Democratic Party, the Greens... --Checco (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a mess, but this does not mean that PRT does not deserve an article. --Checco (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per C_mon, certainly a notable subject. Refs have been fixed. —Nightstallion 13:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson Z520[edit]

Non-notable phone. Wikipedia is not a Sony/Ericsson catalog. An article for this phone will find few substantial secondary references; all that's available are reviews. Mikeblas (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of all currently available commercial products. A model of phone or any other technology which had a significant influence on society would likely have received substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources and would have satisfied WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom--Quek157 (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nominator has changed his stance because the numerous sources and changes made since the initial nomination that clearly establish notability using reliable sources. This is a non-admin closure. spryde | talk 18:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pig jig[edit]

Non-notable barbeque, referenced by a non-internet link to an unknown local paper, and a 404-link to a supposed history page. Mayalld (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non Notable event that is verging on just being an advert. Pedro : Chat 14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment This Google News archive search is actually pretty promising. Article needs a lot of cleanup, however. JavaTenor (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The issue with the majority of the results with the archive search are they are pay-to-view articles, and thus, can't be used unless there is an excerpt that can sufficiently cover the article's content. Ariel♥Gold 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect; all we need for a valid source is the correct publication information for the article. The link is just a convenience to the reader, who may have access to the archive through Lexis-Nexis, a library, or some other similar service (or else we could never cite books, scientific journals, or newspaper articles more than a year old!) JavaTenor (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ArielGold is mistaken in asserting that newspaper archive items may not be used as referenced if payment is required. They are perfectly valid. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:SOURCES. Scientific journals also require payment to view, and they are the gold standard as references. Edison (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I meant by my statement. I meant that they couldn't be used to verify some of the content. Such as the quotation given by a competitor, or the statement that "everyone knows each other's name", things like that, those statements can't be sourced by the list of archived news results. I apologize if I did not word it carefully enough to convey my intent. I'm fully aware that non-online sources can be used, I use them often myself, I just said the archive list couldn't reference all the content in the article. Ariel♥Gold 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misunderstood your statement. I agree that the snips viewable free do not verify many of the details. Edison (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment It is not an advert. As far as the sources go, someone removed the sources that were in place when the article was first posted. When my student called me to first look at the page, prior to the deletion request, there were no less than five sources, including both primary (two interviews) and secondary sources. Something reeks here. So, I request that the administrators give the student until this afternoon to repair his article. I ask that you put some kind of restriction on the article and allow only the original poster to make changes.--Folk smith (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- responseThe "references" that were removed were not WP:V or WP:RS. The creator of the article doesn't WP:OWN it, so no to allowing only the creator to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs)

The issue is not so much that this is an advertisement, but that it does not appear to be an event that has received widespread coverage, and thus, the information given in the article cannot be verified. Verifiability is one of the core pillars here at Wikipedia. As to the sources, there were no reliable, third party sources given. The sources given upon page creation were: Mitchell, Mike. Personal Interview. 11-15-07; Crane, Billie Ruth. Personal interview. 11-16-07; the invalid URL, and Jimesnes, John. Pig Jig Time. Cordele Dispatch. Retrieved November 15, 2007. As I mentioned in the talk page, personal interviews that have not been documented anywhere are considered original research, and not verifiable. This is why they were removed, because they cannot be confirmed, and they were not reliable sources. Ariel♥Gold 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Well, I've had my student repost his secondary sources. I hope they are to your liking. I would also like to add that by not including primary sources you are greatly limiting good information about important subjects. As you have noted that you "don't care" who I am or my title, I should remind you that the secondary sources that you covet so much are written by folks like me - if my position as a professional, degreed scholar doesn't matter to you, why should the articles written by my colleagues matter. --Folk smith (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
response I guess that you missed out on the bit that explains about primary and secondary sources too. Mayalld (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event satisfies WP:N on the basis of substantial coverage in numerous articles in a variety of newspapers over a period of many years, as shown by the Google News archive search referenced above by JavaTenor. Edison (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: If we do keep this article, we should unsalt Big Pig Jig and move it there as the correct title. JavaTenor (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Yes, we should "unsalt" that entry name. That was the name my student originally posted his article under. In regard to primary v/s secondary sources, yes I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies; however, I think that more discussion on this topic is necessary in the future. There are a number of subjects that rely heavily on primary sources and these should not be prohibited based on this. I think you will find that many disciplines are now seeing the benefits of such resources in scholarship. As a folklorist I can tell you that my discipline relies almost entirely on primary sources for much of our research. Just a suggestion to the Wikipedia admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folk smith (talk • contribs) 15:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting my initial comments, I've been scouring for verifiable sources, and while I cannot verify much of the article, I have verified enough to keep it. It was noted by The Travel Channel as being #6 on the top 10 barbecue competitions in the world. It was covered by The Food Network as one of the top barbecue competitions in the country. These should satisfy notability, the rest will need to be cited with proper sources, especially the quotations given, but I have added 7 reliable sources, and I'd agree that the page should be moved to Big Pig Jig, as that is indeed, the full name (although not the "official" name, which is the "Slosheye Trail Big Pig Jig"

). I hope this is helpful. Ariel♥Gold 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response I appreciate your help. The student is going to continue developing this entry. As for the quotes, those come from personal interviews. So, unless wikipedia is willing to allow for primary sources, I guess those will have to be removed. Again, thank you. This is a learning experience for my students and myself. However, I take issue with the implications of some of those above who insist on labeling me as someone who did not research the rules and regulations of this site. I assure you that I did. However, I am no wikipedia expert and I would appreciate a bit of understanding in the future. There is no need for a Spanish Inquisition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folk smith (talk • contribs) 16:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- reply The evidence is against you on this. The article as originally written failed on WP:V and [[WP:RS]. Either you were unaware of these policies or you were disingenuous in the discussion that followed. Mayalld (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just enough notability seems to have been established, as per JavaTenor's comment Big Pig Jig needs to be unsalted and the page moved to there. RMHED (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Big Pig Jig, which is the name of the event. This is a notable event, with the above mentioned coverage by various TV and print media. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now quite a few reliable sources establishing the notability of this event. spryde | talk 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just realized that I hadn't formalized my position on it - given the sources we've been able to find, this event appears to be notable. It's the official Georgia state pork barbecue championship cookoff! ;) I'll start the DRV for Big Pig Jig (or should it be Slosheye Trail Big Pig Jig?) once this AFD completes, if Keep is the result. JavaTenor (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move) Now that notability appears to have been verified. --DAJF (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed to keep) per the hard work above to establish notability. Good work. Pedro : Chat 12:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability now established Mayalld (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Anti-Americanism. GlassCobra 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee go home[edit]

Transwikied dictionary defenition. Post-transwiki PRODing removed. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect at Yankee. The "Yankee go home" slogan is familiar enough to warrant some kind of coverage, and the picture would also add to that article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anti-Americanism 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anti-Americanism per 132, or to something similar, but not to Yankee. Yankee can mean an American (outside of America), or a Northerner (in the South), or a New Englander (in the North) or a rural resident of New England (in New England). And sometimes it refers to a baseball player. Mandsford (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make a mountain out of a molehill[edit]

Transwikied dictionary defenition. Post-transwiki PRODing removed. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This article is short now, but there is always room for expansion. That is what Wikipedia's stub concept is all about. There is plenty of information that can be added in the future, and it does not have to be added today. This article is in a category called "English idoims," which has many similar articles. Hellno2 (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have quite a few articles on similar phrases at Category:English idioms, and this is likely as subject to expansion as the ones we have articles on already. I am curious now as to where this phrase comes from. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems perfectly reasonable to me, useful information. RMHED (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have created similar style articles on English idioms. After similar concerns were addressed (but without a proposal for deletion), I managed to expand them by adding sections on origin, examples, popular culture, and more. I may be able to do the same for this article through research, should it be kept. As Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön suggested, it would be a good idea to write about the origin. I am curious too. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: This article has already had something added to it since I last checked yesterday Hellno2 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES as a notable idiom. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mutaling[edit]

Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. These is no need for an article on every unit type, nor how to use them. Improbcat (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A strategy for Starcraft. Delete per nom. Burzmali (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Pagra shtak 13:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A1octopus (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as leftovers from AfD about the artist. Also deleting A Walk in the Park (Jordan) and A Walk In The Park (Jordan), a redirect. GlassCobra 23:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too Young for a Girlfriend[edit]

No assertion of notability. No sources given. Unable to find any reliable sources. Also see Tom_Jordan_(singer) Mdbrownmsw (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to suggest this and the album be added to the original AFD yesterday. Delete as non-notable single from currently non-notable artist. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Young for a Girlfriend. GlassCobra 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Walk in the Park (Jordan)[edit]

No assertion of notability. No sources given. Unable to find any reliable sources. Also see Tom_Jordan_(singer) Mdbrownmsw (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since author of work is also not notable at present. A1octopus (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and the Jordan AFD. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kid's club house[edit]

There is very little content and a notability tag has been in place since about August. Brollachan (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 17:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete; non-notable band with no releases at all, much less on a notable label. GlassCobra 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uglor[edit]

Procedural nom, fixing malformed AFD from User:Sukiari. No vote. shoy (^words _words) 16:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band, record never released... JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many billions of bands have 'almost' released an album? Sukiari (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrosse Deathball[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lacrosse Deathball (2nd nomination)

Appears to be one author who deleted a proposed deletion [17], and previously a notable tag [18], without comment. This article is not verifiable. The game looks fun, but I suspect that this article is a hoax. and should be deleted as it is not encyclopedic. Mitico (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NFT in spades. --Pak21 (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Absolutely nothing to reflect notability. Xymmax (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like nonsense. RMHED (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't think it's a hoax, but I doubt it's played by anyone but the author and his friends. No mention of any notability outside of Pleasanton Amaryllis25^{"Talk to me"} 13:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, no verifiable claim to notability. Delete per policies. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and this article falls into that category. Useight (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought lacrosse could be described as "deathball" without any fancy rules... Delete, WP:NFT. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Pescetarianism. GlassCobra 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pesci-vegetarianism[edit]

Based on the 8 ghits, it seems that this definition can't be expanded into a verifiable article. MER-C 12:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Pescetarianism. --DAJF (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems unlikely to be useful as a redirect.--Michig (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pescetarianism. It nips the neologism in the caviar(; Serioulsy, it would actually be useful to the people that type just that and get to the article that is about what they want to know. Note from the lede of "pescetarianism": Terms like pescevegetarianism[1] and pesco-vegetarianism are sometimes used to describe pescetarianism, to emphasize that most pescetarians eat vegetables in addition to seafood...--victor falk (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Victor Falk. Looking at this term and I wonder if it's some offshot of vegism based on some obscure belief of Joe Pesci. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara Falls Cyclones[edit]

Unverifiable article on a non-notable baseball team. 5 ghits. TLDR also applies to this extensive diary of events. MER-C 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- Caknuck (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently unsourced; no evidence of encyclopedic notability. Xoloz (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. There's no violation at all, so I am closing this nomination. About the nominator, I assume good faith, he looks like a novice here. --Angelo (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor (US TV series)[edit]

Delete GFDL violation from Survivor (TV series).

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.

--As3x (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly speedily: I don't see what the GFDL violation is here, and we can fix up copy-and-paste problems if necessary. Not a reason for deletion. --Pak21 (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, apart from the delete claim having no basis this account existed for ten minutes before making this which seems well... odd. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the violation that is being cited at all; perhaps As3x can elaborate? Xymmax (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, I split off text from Survivor (TV series) to this to address WP:SIZE issues, and I've seen most of what's been added to that and this page, and I really don't understand where there's even a GFDL violation, or where even such information would have already been found in GDFL. --MASEM 14:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that, given only the Survivor (US TV series) page, how am I supposed to find out who the major authors were, as is required by the GFDL? --Pak21 (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Looks like a bad faith nomination I'm afraid to say. Pedro : Chat 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Where is the violation? KnightLago (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep violation not clarified. Bad faith nom Doc Strange (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mindblister[edit]

A band member dying in the middle of a performance is very unusual, but unfortunately I can't verify this. 8 ghits. MER-C 12:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And none of the 8 hits are about the band. This reeks of WP:HOAX. Being speared by a drum stick? A ecis^Brievenbus 12:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Aecis. My money is on obvious WP:HOAX. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxalicious! Delete as nonsense. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs present, and I can't find anything. And I'm not about to believe the events described here without a news report to confirm it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. OR, unsourced, NN, looks like an advert. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tempel Loungeclub (Helsingborg)[edit]

Organisation with no reliable sources which give any indication of notability. Pak21 (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely unsourced. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hersov[edit]

Contested prod. Procedural nomination, no opinion. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per {{db-bio}}, as originally tagged. Prod reason was "executive bio without any major importance". It fails the requirements of WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- This is nothing more than a resumè.---Iconoclast Horizon 12:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
Not speedy since it claims importance--it just has to claim it, not show it or have it--claiming even minor importance is enough to avoid speedy., according to WP:CSD and deletion policy. But certainly delete--i originally changed it to prod with the sumary given above. DGG (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - it's a CV/resumè/profile about a non-notable, not an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions and the list of South Africa-related deletions. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Well, the Guardian called him "a pin up for many budding internet entrepreneurs" [19] which implies at least a hint of notability, but I don't see much other in depth coverage of him [20] so weak delete anyway. His companies are probably more notable than he is - a brief mention in one of those articles would be more appropriate. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as for Why Make Clocks. Tikiwont (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Transient Swivel[edit]

Self-released 4-song 7-inch EP recorded by midwestern-USA band Why Make Clocks. One-line article since 2006, seems part of a walled garden. Not a notable release, possibly not a notable band. You decide! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page says nothing more than the main band page says. It hasn't been updated in quite a while and doesn't appear that it is going to be. Alberon (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Why Make Clocks. If consensus is to delete the target, just delete this as well. --Pak21 (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stub from a band that isn't notable. I already have chimed in for deletion of the band's article, so I oppose redirect (although it was a very reasonable suggestion). Xymmax (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No evidence that any of his bands are actually notable; none of them have Wikipedia articles (though that in itself is not proof) and most links are to myspace pages etc. No prejudice to re-creation if evidence to the contrary can be produced. ELIMINATORJR 00:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Frochaux[edit]

While some of his bands may or may not be notable, he himself doesn't appear to be individually notable (yet) for inclusion in Wikipedia. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Person is notable if is in a band that is notable --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree with sumnjim. an individual memeber of the New York Philharmonic is unlikely to be notable enough, though the band is. Each memeber needs to establish their own notability, through substantive coverage in secondary sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was not talking about an orchestra, or a choir, but rather a band. WP:MUSIC states that a band is notable if at one time a member of the band was notable. If A + B = C, I don't see why B + A != C --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was some talk during the double-length discussion about additional sources that would supply notability, but the only source that ended up being added was a trivial listing of the top five brokerage firms in his local area, the fifth of which was his. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Phillips (businessman)[edit]

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable. • Lawrence Cohen 23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have looked and can't find an article of the company that this person leads, so I think this person is definitely not notable. Captain panda 03:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can't find news articles, but there are a number of websites about his candidacy for the House of Representatives. I believe the subject is somewhat notable. --- FrankTobia (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which sites? I didn't notice these before. We need to check if they qualify as reliable sources, but that could definitely play a role if we can review them. • Lawrence Cohen 21:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Hi folks, I created the article. There are indeed a number of websites about the candidacy and his work in the community. He is a regular political correspondent on local news stations and owns one of the largest investment firms in Oregon. I believe the CEO category is a fitting spot for a page on him. I will add more links to the page and look for more. Sturatt (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is nothing more than a resumè.---Iconoclast Horizon 12:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
Delete not suff. notable Victuallers (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mango juice^talk 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bow tie wearers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article, originally nominated for deletion in January, is as it states - a list of famous people who wear bow ties. On first appearance the article is well sourced and has a large opening as to its point but upon reading the text it becomes apparent that this should be probably be part of the bow tie article and not part of this article as it relates to the effects that the bow tie goes under when worn by famous people.

Once this opening section is looked over the article is nothing more than its title, which is about as useful as a list of people who have pocket watches. This articles existance is based on its opening sections which shouldn't be in the article in the first place and serve only to give the impression this list should exist. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it would be logical to merge this content into Bow tie, the resulting article would be too large, and the list would overwhelm the rest of the article content. List of bow tie wearers has a file size of 39,436 bytes, while Bow tie has a file size of 7,065 bytes. Combining the articles would merely create a new problem needing a new solution (and I predict that the first suggestion would to recreate List of bow tie wearers).

As for the title and concept, back when bow tie wearers were listed in the bow tie article, they were called "Men known for their bow ties." It is true that many of these people are "known for their bow ties" (actually, they are notable for other reasons, but are strongly associated with bow ties in the minds of many), but that title is problematic because it requires someone to make the difficult determination of whether a candidate for listing is actually "known" for bow ties.--Orlady (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the length may be too large but that does not mean the information should be placed o a page it has nothing to do with simply for a place it needs to be. The information is the only thing keeping the list afloat and it shouldn't be there. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As soon as you delete this page, someone will start the list in the bowtie article, the list will grow, and then it will be moved over to something like this page. We've had this deletion discussion before, and will have it again and again. This is Wikipedia, not Minimalpedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons provided for deletion are insubstantial. This article is one of the best I've seen on Wikipedia. I am encouraged to try wearing a bow tie more often myself... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Madness. This is a fantastic list cum article and should (after some work perhaps) be a featured list. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The article section has no place on the list, and a fair bit of it does not relate to people who wear bow ties but bow ties in general that should be on the bow tie article. The actual list itself is the issue here, its existence is precipitated upon a false premise. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate list of unrelated people. These people bear no relationship to one another beyond wearing bow ties. The wearing of bow ties may or may not be some sort of cultural signifier; if so, then it can be explored in the main article along with representative examples to illustrate the point. That an editor may or may not start listing more examples in the main article or generating a list is not a valid argument. We should not encourage the lamentable practice of maintaining garbage dump articles out of fear of cluttering the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you've already noted, they are related, and the trollish labeling of the article "garbage dump" is probably not the most persuasive argument you could make. htom (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not related. Are you seriously suggesting that Dave Garroway, Louis Farrakhan and Donald Duck share an encyclopedic relationship based on neckwear? Otto4711 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. People can be related in ways other than birth and marriage. Marines, Lutherans, architects, ... various flavors of Wikipedian editors, and bow tie wearers. htom (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that wearing a bow tie creates the sort of encyclopedic relationship that is created by religion, profession or military service is ludicrous. Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to a list of Wikipedians by the number of edits? List_of_wikipedians_by_number_of_edits htom (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can point to any list or article that you care to and my answer will be the same. The existence of the one does not serve to justify the existence of another. If you think that the Wikipedians by number of edits is unencyclopedic then feel free to nominate it for deletion and I'll weigh in with an opinion there. That opinion, just like that list, is irrelevant to the discussion of this list. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merge the article bit and a severely trimmed representative list into Bow tie, and maybe categorify the rest. David Mestel^(Talk) 16:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for public notable figures, the characteristic clothing they use can be a common notable relationship. The world contains more types of important relationships than "religion, profession or military service" . There's a good deal more than that to life. DGG (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again: what is the association between Dave Garroway, Louis Farrakhan and Donald Duck? What is the association between Stan Laurel, William Durden and Les Nessman? What is the relationship between Walter Gropius, Steve Jobs and Opus the Penguin? Is there any association beyond their often or even usually sporting a bow tie? No? If the only thing that links all of these people and fictional characters together is the wearing of a bow tie, then the association is loose and Wikipedia is not for lists or repositories of loosely associated people and fictional characters. No one on this list became notable because they wore bow ties. They became notable, and because they were notable and thus often written about, their ties were sometimes mentioned in sources about them. Not the basis for a list and no amount of fluffy quotes from puff pieces or jibber jabber from bow tie salesmen is suddenly going to change that. Otto4711 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one became notable because they were of a given religion, or profession, or military service either--and those were the examples given. That's not what justifies collecting in a list. I agree this doesnt hold for every possible form of clothing, but for many of these it was distinctive or commented on. DGG (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? No one ever became notable for being of a given religion? There hasn't ever been a single person notable for being in the military or in connection with their profession? Do you honestly believe that? Or are you just saying it because you think it bolsters your case? And I'm sorry, but the fact that one or even a bunch of the people on this list had their bow ties commented upon does not mean that they are associated with each other in any meaningful way. Lots of people have all sorts of things "commented on" in the course of a public career; that doesn't make a list of everyone who's gotten commented on for the same thing encyclopedic. Otto4711 (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, you seem to be Begging the question. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am asking the question, what is the association between the people on this list? If it's limited to "they wear bow ties" then the looseness of the association puts the list in violation of policy. Otto4711 (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must confess that several times I've been in a social gathering and someone's come up to me and said something like "I remember you, you're x, the y who wears a bow tie" -- even if I wasn't wearing a bow tie at the time. Whether you're notable or not, a bow tie can help set and trigger peoples' memories of you. Were those in the list more noticed or more remembered because they were bow tie wearers? Perhaps. Is this because of the relative scarcity of bow ties in general life? Probably. You do a thing that sets you apart, and people remember you and your work more. This can -- not will -- lead to you being notable. htom (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your point, things that trigger memories does not mean articles listing who possess them. A hypothetical I could think of would be "you're the guy with that tattoo", which would apply to many people who are known for tattoos. Does this mean we need a list of tattoo wearers? Unlike bow ties tattoo likely last until death and are a constant on the individual howeveer we do not because the connection is entirely irrelevant. Being notable in someones memory is not the same as being notable. Hypothetical "hey you're the guy with the pierced chin and eyebrow" may make you memorable butdoes not lend itself to a required list of people with pierced faces. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old saying is that you never get a second chance to make a first impression (I think that overstates, but second chances are very rare.) The list is not of people who were notable because of their bow ties, but notable for other reasons and who frequently (often enough to be noted) wear bow ties. Whether the notablity was because of, or in spite of, the bow tie wearing is not a factor in making the list. Were they promoted or accepted or hired or granted tenure or ... or fired because of the memory nudge provided by the bow tie? We don't know. We also don't know, for most of them, when in their career they started, or why; it may have been a family tradition, a practical thing, ..., they consider it to be an "I've made it!" badge. They are notable, AND they wear bow ties. (If there was a list of notable people with pierced faces, I'd probably defend that, too; a list of otherwise non-notable people with pierced faces, probably not.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC) I thought I signed this. htom (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've just made the case against this list. The people on the list, as you acknowledge, are not notable because they wore bow ties. Their reasons for wearing bow ties are undetermined, possibly undeterminable. The wearing of a bow tie by any member of the list has no demonstrable connection to any other member's wearing a bow tie. It is listification based on coincidence of dress, on trivial intersection, on non-association. Otto4711 (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listification? The reasons that anyone does something are rarely completely determinable, even if you ask them. The reasons that some one is a Lutheran, ..., a Marine, ..., an architect, ..., or a Wikipedian, are usually complex, and the consequences of those decisions affect how others may or may not see them (some decisions are essentially invisible (circumcision), and do not usually, as such, have such affects.) Wearing a bow tie, however, is a rather public and obvious statement, especially in the last fifty years or so. The list provides examples of bow tie wearers who have succeeded, demonstrating that "you'll never get promoted wearing a bow tie" is not always correct. I understand that you think it's trivial; I used to think that about a lot of things, until I ran into the amount of prejudice people had about the so-called "invisible handicaps". Non-association? You've never worn a bow tie other than with a tux, have you? Two of the most frequent comments to me by strangers when I'm wearing one is "Aha! Another bow tie wearer!" and "I wear them too, but today ...." htom (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want the list in part to advocate a point of view about wearing bow ties, which is completely inappropriate. You're also taking this discussion far too personally because of your own experiences. Whether I've worn a bow tie never, only with a tux or every day of my life is not relevant. The point still remains that if the only association between the people on this list is an article of clothing then the association is too loose to serve as the basis for a Wikipedia article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to want the list removed because you think it's trivia and coincidence, and seem to refuse to hear that there could be anything else to it. Let me try to sign this one. htom (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am always willing to be persuaded but there's been nothing said in favor of keeping this list that's at all persuasive. Otto4711 (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This discussion has been singularly uninformative so far. However, I think I discern that Otto4711's principal objection to this article is to the introductory content that focused on the use of famous bow-tie wearers to help sell bow ties.

I agree that commercial aspects of the list were over-emphasized, and I have made some changes to the article with the intent of diminishing the commercial focus. More changes could be made along those same lines.

IMO, the commercial discussion misrepresents the main focus of the list, which is on notable people who have (for one reason or another) made bow-tie wearing part of their public identity. It is remarkable how often a man who wears bow ties is described as using the bow tie as his "trademark" or "signature". When profiles of bow-tie wearers are written by third parties, if the bow tie is not identified as his "trademark", the bow tie is usually mentioned within the first 25 words. This is a list of notable people -- in all fields -- who are identified as bow-tie wearers. This article is not an endorsement of bow-tie wearing; more often than not, the sources cited and quotations used are derisive (or at least ironic) about these men's penchants for bow ties.

Off-topic: I find it ironic that Otto4711, who is an avowed fan of the Algonquin Round Table, does not grasp the value of this article. The real theme of this article is caricature, a genre (primarily in written form) that is very much associated with some members of the Algonquin Round Table. If Dorothy Parker were alive today, I can imagine her writing "Girls seldom make eyes at men wearing bow ties."

--Orlady (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have discerned that my main objection to this article is to the introductory comments, then your powers of discernment are rather weak. My objections to this list, as I have stated time and again, are that it is an indiscriminate list capturing people and fictional characters who have no association with one another beyond happening to share similar taste in neckwear. "Likes bow ties" or "wears bow ties" or even "is known for wearing bow ties" does not create any meaningful association between the people on the list. These objections have never been addressed in any substantive manner, regardless of what Mrs Parker may or may not have written on the subject were she alive today. Otto4711 (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the basis for your objections, Otto4711. You are saying that "wearing of bow ties" is a trivial association. Apparently you say this because you perceive the only association to be "similar taste in neckwear." You are entitled to your opinion, but the overwhelming emphasis of the sources cited and quoted in this article is on the bow tie as a major, deliberately chosen element of a man's identity or public image. How else to explain (for example) the university president who capitalizes on his reputation for a "trademark bow tie" by calling his travels around the state "Bow Tie Bus Tours"? Or how about the TV journalist who stopped wearing bow ties when he joined CBS because a network official told him that Charles Osgood was CBS' bow-tie-wearing personality and "We can't have two guys wearing bow ties"? Or how about the politicians who are nicknamed "Bow Tie" by their opponents and/or supporters? Or the fact that Harvard University has kept a collection of Walter Gropius' bow ties? This is an association that goes beyond mere "personal taste." Furthermore, unlike most associations based on a person's appearance (e.g., bald head, big nose, bushy eyebrows, nervous tics), the bow-tie-wearing association is totally voluntary, so there is no risk of defaming a living person by saying he is an "habitual bow-tie wearer." --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a person's bow tie-wearing is indeed commented upon in reliable sources, then by all means that information should be added to that individual's article if appropriate. The fact that one or even several people had their bow ties commented upon or saved by a university or whatever does not mean that every single person who wears bow ties a lot are associated with each other. The fact that some politician gets called "Bow Tie" doesn't create an encylopedic association with another bow tie wearer, even another one called "Bow Tie," any more than being named "Bob" means that we should have a List of people named Bob. That multiple people choose to make a similar fashion statement doesn't convey encyclopedic notability on them for that reason any more than a list of women who sport the same hairstyle or carry the same handbag. All sorts of fashion accessories are used by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons but that doesn't mean we should have lists of people by fashion accessory. All of these points you're claiming about about the social implications of wearing a bow tie may or may not be valid. If there is encyclopedic information available on the cultural associations of the bow tie, then it should be at Bow tie and not in a catch-all list of people who wore a bow tie, any more than an encyclopedic treatment of Windsor knot or Four-in-hand knot means that we should have a list of people who use those knots to tie their ties. Otto4711 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this article is not about "every single person who wears bow ties a lot"; it is about notable people whose wearing of bow ties is a part of their public identity. You say "if there is encyclopedic information available on the cultural associations of the bow tie, then it should be at Bow tie"; however, as I stated in my initial "vote" above, if this content were merged into Bow tie, the resulting article would be too large, and the list would overwhelm the rest of the article content. --Orlady (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list portion of it should not exist in any article because of its indiscriminate nature and its collection of otherwise-unassociated people. Otto4711 (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely pointless article which devalues Wikipedia's content. Ros0709 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what purpose does this list serve, you could equally have List of Fedora wearers. RMHED (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I am not a personal fan of bow ties or ties in general, the list features prose, images, an introduction, references, etc. to establish notability, verifiability, and to satisfy our various guidelines regarding lists. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List might need some work, but that certainly doesn't merit deletion. --Strothra (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a good sourced list article. If it wasn't, then I would support deletion. Sometimes I think that Wikia should start a list wiki. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is well-written, interesting and supported by research. Isn't that encyclopedic? WWGB (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-written" does not equal "encyclopedic." Neither does interesting. "Supported by research" does unless the topic of that research fails policy. An indiscriminate list of bow tie wearers fails policy. Otto4711 (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The evidence unearthed by Tony Fox appears reasonable, and of course English-language sources may be hard to come by. ELIMINATORJR 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foto na Dans[edit]

A not notable band from South Africa. Malcolmxl5 01:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears that they're doing fairly well for themselves, judging from the refs I've turned up. I think there would be far more if I could read Afrikaans - there are probably more refs in that language than English. Interview and album review on 24.com; another review on iafrica.com; a mention as part of a festival lineup to indicate they're touring the country substantially; and this article (from the article itself) where one of the band members discusses Afrikaans music in general. There seems to be enough in English to suggest they're notable, and as I say, if we could check other in-region resources, it might be higher. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sina estaky[edit]

Unreferenced autobiography. Prod removed by author / article subject himself. Nehwyn (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and WP:AUTO. JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTO -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTO. jj137 (Talk) 22:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChessGames.com[edit]

I declined to speedy delete this article as it isn't blatant advertising and there is what could be considered an assertion of notability. I do think this article should be deleted however. Notability is weak and there are no independent sources that discuss the website. WjBscribe 09:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An awesome website actually, however, doesn't seem to be widespread, fails WP:WEB. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process. As the article itself is not tagged for deletion, this speedy delete is out-of-process and should be closed. A new one should be opened when it is tagged, and then discussion could move forward. As it is, readers of the article are unaware of this deletion debate. And a late tag at this point would be unfair to those readers. Themindset (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like my tag was removed. This AfD can run for a few extra hours to compensate for that if you would like, but an AfD does not become "out of process" because a third party removes the tag. Please find some sources to support the notability of this subject... WjBscribe 14:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A late tag and an extension of the AFD is the proper way to handle it even if WJBscribe had forgotten to tag the article, which isn't the case. Forcing a new discussion is just unnecessary, especially when the outcome is so clear. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete blatant advertising Doc Strange (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammy, no notability asserted (besides ho-hum member numbers), and of course no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Oh, and I was originally the one who nominated it for speedy deletion. Later, I realized it was not a BLATANT advertisement (which is the criteria for speedy deletion), so I decided to remove the speedy deletion tag as per a discussion I had on a similar wikipedia page. Unknowingly I removed (what I thought) was the speedy deletion tag (but was actually an AfD tag). Sorry about that. Mitsein (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Twsx. I like the website a lot as well because it has several useful functions, but it simply does not meet the WP:WEB guidelines. For numbers, the size of the game database is large but not exceptional, several databases have millions of games. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Resident Evil Weapons[edit]

In a similar vein to deletions of "list of weapons in insert fictional work here" (see, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in the Resident Evil Outbreak Series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of firearms in films), this should be deleted as Wikipedia is not a plot summary. Unsourced and incomplete. MER-C 09:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. A character list might be deserving of a separate article, but weapons could be merged into the main Resident Evil article. Amaryllis25^{"Talk to me"} 14:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is almost impossible to imagine an encyclopedic coverage of this topic with any kind of real-world notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous 'list of weapons' deletions, very little chance of a reliable gaming writer covering these weapons in detail to satisfy notability requirements. Lists of in-game items are ejected from game articles so there's even less reason for a standalone article. Zombie goes "murgh" boomstick goes "BOOM", the end. Someone another (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cruft revolving around items in a game doesn't assert any notability. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context for "Weapons in Resident Evil", therefore a list is not justified. Jay32183 (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, the nomination was initated by the creator (who clearly wants the article kept, per the 09:34, 20 November 2007 comment) because a user wanted the article deleted, a view which has such been repealed by this user (at least temporarily). Daniel 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wotif.com[edit]

See Talk:Wotif.com - speedy removed by 2 people, but I see no harm in getting consensus. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 09:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the subject is notable from where I sit, as evidenced by both several independant reliable sources and personal knowledge (I know that isn't sufficient evidence, but the reliable sources are). Suggestions that this is an advertisment are ridiculous in my opinion, as it's written in a perfectly neutral manner. Merely having an article on a notable topic does not make it "advertising". Daniel 09:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The independent reliable sources are articles that could be about any corporation in the world (one is about the company getting a new CEO, the other two are about how the company is bidding on another company). Do we really want articles about every corporation out there? This company is not significant and the existence of this page only provides free adspace for the business. The news articles can be found through google news and all the other information from the page is directly from the website (which make the article suspect). Daniel, we disagree on the definition of an advertising. Ads can be neutral! Yes, every wikipedia article on a business is an advertisement because these pages raise consumer awareness. This is why we need to limit articles about businesses to those that have notable reasons for existence. Also, please avoid using the terms "laughable" or "ridiculous" in responding to well-reasoned arguments if you don't actually respond point by point. For a more in depth analysis go to the talk page http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Wotif.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsein (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Accusing an established Wikipedian of creating an advertisment for a company implies bad faith. Don't throw stones, thanks. Daniel 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the talk page I specifically indicated that I wasn't accusing the creator of intentionally making an advertisement. I'm sorry if it appeared that way. Instead, I was just using the hypothetical to prove by extension that all non-notable business articles function as ads and could be subject to manipulation and therefore none should exist. Yes, I'm saying that there should be NO articles about business that aren't significant, whether or not the intention was nefarious or not. That is my stance and I stand by it. Is there a place where I could discuss this more generally or should I just use test cases? Mitsein (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about the talk page of WP:CORP? Trying to change policy through speedy deletion nominations and articles for deletion debates is not practical nor effective in this situation. Furthermore, to change Wikipedia-wide consensus on this issue, the discussion has to be at a centralised location such as the policy talk page, because deletion doesn't work on precedent. Daniel 09:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the heads up. Still getting used to the consensus process. Also, when I nominated it for speedy deletion I was unaware that there are literally hundreds of similar articles on business that I personally would not consider notable. Whether I like it or not, this seems to be the norm. Please don't misinterpret this encounter as an attempt to bypass wikipedia regulations, I was just unaware of the situation. Mitsein (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Can we close this AfD as redundant? Do you withdraw your protests to delete this specific article at this time? Daniel 09:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, sure. I'll bring up my argument more generally when I have time. Mitsein (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Ads can be neutral! Yes, every wikipedia article on a business is an advertisement because these pages raise consumer awareness. This is why we need to limit articles about businesses to those that have notable reasons for existence" - I'm sorry, but that is as I described it above. We have no limit on bandwidth, and this meets our primary notability criterion (multiple independant reliable sources). If you wish to dispute the merits of our fundamental inclusion policy, or whether we should put a limit on the number of articles on Wikipedia, then this isn't the right venue. Daniel 09:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Do we really want articles about every corporation out there?" - Yes, about every notable corporation. This is one. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 09:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Verifiable third party sources are available; demonstrating notability. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Great work by User:Kateshortforbob in finding references. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ape[edit]

Non notable company, reads like an ad, couldn't find reliable third party sources. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 08:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Go Ape" has millions of unrelated Google hits and a few related ones. There were a couple of useful looking ones; I'll add them to to the article and see if that makes a difference. At the minute, it definitely reads like an ad. -- Kateshort forbob 10:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Badly fails WP:COMPANY. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added some references and other information. The company has a couple of claims to notability, but may still skate on the edge - I'm honestly not sure! Anyone like to take another look? -- Kateshort forbob 12:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC) ETA I think it should be moved to Go Ape which is currently a redirect to this article (??) if it's kept. -- Kateshort forbob 12:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I won't call speedy for G11, though the article is kind of spammy. References aren't terribly appropriate - some stuff from web page, an op-ed letter, and a couple of blurbs. Not really that notable based on those. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the sources that have been added seem to show it has at least minimal notability--since it has fairly widespread operations throughout the country. DGG (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to make a gentle appeal for a common sense interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have no interest in or connection with this company, its people, or its activities. Much though I agree the article did at the date of this edit "read[s] like an ad", a simple problem of incorrect writing style can be quickly and easily solved by a little copyediting. I see the article has been copyedited to address this particular concern since the AfD nomination. As regards this AfD, I do think following a process of improvement is more harmonious and moves the Wikipedia project more quickly towards the goal of encyclopedic content. The main issue I see in this AfD is the notability of the company. Notability per WP:COMPANY is established by independent coverage of the subject by reliable secondary sources. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. I think that's a very clear guideline. As regards this AfD, there is independent coverage of the company in reliable secondary sources, and at least two of them are cited in plain view in the article: (1) The BBC article that specifically discusses this company and its support from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, (2) The England Forestry Stategy 2006 by the UK Forestry Commission and the UK government's Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs that mentions this company. Citing two reliable secondary sources with independent coverage clearly establishes notability per the guideline. However, there are additional secondary sources for the notability of the company: (1) The (British) National Farmers Union NFU Countryside Magazine, August 2003 issue, has coverage of its 2003 awards ceremony at which Rural Tourist Attraction of the Year was given to the company. (2) The South West Tourism's coverage of the South West Tourism Awards for Excellence 2005, one of which was presented to the company by a UK government minister, [21] [22] I think these secondary sources do establish the notability of the company. I am trying to be constructive, and I would very much appreciate hearing other editors' further thoughts. - Neparis (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasSpeedy keep as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adbusters[edit]

Blatant advertising page for Adbusters organization, distinct lack of reliable sourcing beyond local newspapers and sources directly related to the organization. Most of the article is sourced only from the organizations website rather than what is required by our policies. Article has existed since 2003 so there has been plenty of time to establish the notability and find these sources. I attempted to suggest that those watching the page clean it up by leaving appropriate tags, but these have been removed by an anon editor. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Keep I'm having trouble assuming good faith here. The article does need improving (I'll get to work), but to suggest deletion is ridiculous. faithless (^speak) 08:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious speedy keep Secretlondon (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy reason for this, or is it a "ILIKEIT" speedy keep request? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a very obviously notable organization with (for example) over 700 hits just on the New York Times website. AFD is not for content disputes; please use WP:DR processes instead. Edit warring with an anon and AFD are not your only choices here. --Dhartung | Talk 09:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of mainstream media articles on Adbusters, such as this one [23] from the New York Times and this one [24] from the Guardian. Nick mallory (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references section in the article provides sufficient reliable sources to prove its notability -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autobomb[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Autobomb

Non notable unsigned band. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:MUSIC policy Secretlondon (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Secretlondon (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep band article, delete all others including Category:Autobomb_albums. Googling for them, they are represented on many many pages. Couldn't find any that would suffice as a reliable source, so good references would still need to be found and added, but it seems the notability is definitely given, so the band article should be kept. As for the others, notability is not inherited, delete. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I get 850 Google hits searching for 'Autobomb band', which isn't a lot - and as noted above, there are no reliable sources included in that bunch. there's a lot of blogs that say they played on the same bill as Andrew WK and other notable bands, but with only one EP out and no buzz besides some blog chatter, they don't meet WP:MUSIC at present. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if deleted, this should redirect to car bomb 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Sophie[edit]

Deletion nomination Fails the fiction notability and the writing about fiction guidelines. Its about a single plot element of a single book, and there is no evidence that any independent sources discuss this element. Thus, there is no real-world context that can be provided about this. Thus, it should be deleted. Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A fictional ship from a single book is not sufficiently notable to deserve a separate article on its own -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-If this ship needs a page, all the ships, but not limited to, in this page[25] should also have a wiki page too...totally ridiculous...may merge to a larger page.--Quek157 (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence the ship itself is notable. JJL (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 15:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come On In! The Water's Pink[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Come On In! The Water's Pink

This article is poorly written, trivial, and the dog cannot be a balloon. --Syndrome (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content issues are not deletion issues. The above calls for a clean-up, not a deletion of this article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, I'm new to this. What I should have said is that it violates WP:N, even if it were cleaned up. --Syndrome (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what does User:Syndrome mean by "the dog cannot be a balloon"? is that important to the deletion process? Doc Strange (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply a google search turns up reliable sources that could be used to expand this article. That is all WP:N requires. While the article violates WP:WAF guidelines with regard to content, it is clear that the sources exist to expand the article so it would no longer violate that guideline. That is all WP:N requires; reliable sources for expansion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD#G7 - only author has blanked page and CSD#A7 - web content with no assertion of notability. Davewild (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi5 Hitmaker Award 2007[edit]

No reliable sources, nonotable award, don't think it can be PRODed. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 06:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Looks like something someone made up in school one day. (Yeah, it could be PRODded, but this gets it done for good.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 (db-web) as an article about web-content that makes NO assertions of notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Looks like self-promotion, totally unnotable. User polls on social networking sites do not make good encyclopedia articles. Giving it a fancy, official-sounding name like "Hi5 Hitmaker Award" doesn't make it any more interesting than the more mundane "What breed of cat are you?" Foobaz·o< 07:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm just not seeing any substantial coverage as per WP:WEB W.marsh 15:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Square Haven[edit]

Does not pass WP:WEB. Alexa says its rank is >150,000 and it has less than 17,000 G-hits. I feel like, while the site itself is good, it doesn't pass notability for webpages. Axem Titanium 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Balloonman (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline A7 speedy. No assertions of notability. Also no independent sources seem to exist, thus fails the most basic notability requirements. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The removal of this article would only serve to further alienate those seeking quality and quantity in regards to anything related to Square Enix. It's the most relevant site for Square Enix content on the internet -- no other resource meets its depth in regards to music, media, game information, game guides, and people data. It has been used as a reference for numerous articles on Wikipedia. Removing this article will only worsen the traffic issue rather than give this site the exposure it deserves. Wikipedia must be a quality resource. Don't disconnect Wikipedia from the quality references that feed it. Mberti (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A resource can be used without it having its own Wikipedia page. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability requirements are justified internally. Website is notable for, among other things, exclusive interviews with game designers, which have been validated by reliable third-party sources including Wired[26] and Kotaku[27].--Jeriaska —Preceding comment was added at 07:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions of Square Haven on those two sources are trivial. Neither of them makes any claim that Square Haven hosts exclusive interviews. They only say that Square Haven just happened to be where they read about it. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Councilor[edit]

Very minor, non-notable office in The Sword of Truth series. If I recall correctly, it is mentioned in a grand total of one of the books in the 11-book long series (not counting the prequel novella, where it is also not mentioned). Article provides no information out of the universe and could probably be speedied for such. I do not recommend a merge, for as stated this is a very minor office in terms of the storyline and merging would not provide any useful content to the target article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily fails WP:FICT and WP:WAF guidelines, as it appears that there is NO real-world context about this character existing outside of wikipedia, and thus there is no way to add such information to the article in question. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable fictional character. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FICT. Hal peridol (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are real first councilors that would be better served with this deleted 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayleigh Ross

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted under WP:CSD#A7 by Keegan (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayleigh Ross[edit]

Contested proposed deletion of a possible autobiographical article. Little assertion of any notability in the article, no news articles to be found and nothing on the web shows anything of significance. Fails to have biographical notability. Peripitus (Talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possible Speedy Delete since the article does not appear to even assert notability. --DAJF (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete clear A7 deletion. This article amounts to "Kayleigh Ross is a person" and not much more. This is what CSD a7 was created for. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Speedy Delete- But what if she really is hot, like the article says? Should we reverse it?? haha---Iconoclast Horizon 07:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)

Instantaneous Speedy Delete - Unsourced garbage.--WaltCip (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in a speedy manner. Hurry up admins!! Delete it! •Malinaccier Public• ^T/C 13:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music4Games[edit]

Not sure if this site passes WP:WEB. Approx. 15,000 G-hits (although Google has been weird for me and it seems to vary) and Alexa is >250,000. Some of the references seem to be statements of fact, rather than notability as well (ie, Music4Games did this rather than Music4Games is important for this) and some of the cited pages are not quite reliable (GIGnews is one). Axem Titanium 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having submitted writing to this website, I cannot claim to have an impartial perspective. Nevertheless, I feel it is necessary to point out that the many exclusive interviews provided by Music4Games ought to be sufficient to distinguish it as notable. This is the only English-language industry website devoted to international game music news and reviews. Deleting this page would be a disservice to readers who wish to research this field. Jeriaska —Preceding comment was added at 05:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Balloonman (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article provides multiple, non-trivial, and independent sources on its own. Internal evidence of notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not one of which is any good. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability, no reliable sources. Fails WP:WEB. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As creator of this entry, I noted in the discussion section I intended to include a section about contributions, which is now completed. This offers some new references that you may want to review. However, I would note that the traffic and Alexa rating argument aren't very solid as our one week rating is actually at 165k, and if if you look at our reach trend, it has been dramatically increasing since June of 2007 (with the introduction of new writers and new exclusive articles). In terms of references, we have been featured numerous times in print, but obviously that information is hard for anyone to confirm, so I did not feel it was appropriate. To agree with Jeriaska, I would say that M4G is one of the larger sites that focus on such a niche in the industry, and as such, it will never be as large as all-encompassing sites like IGN. Removing this article would indeed be a huge disservice to fans of game music in the United States as a number of composer wikipedia articles link to interviews at Music4Games, which leads some users to want to know more about the site. --Arcubalis|talk|contribs 07:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.238.219 (talk) [reply]

Comment. It is very definitely appropriate to include print references, so if you have them please put them in the article. Just because a reference can't be checked by a click of a mouse it doesn't mean that it is not reliable and verifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please remember that we are not debating the article's merits as a resource or any service it could provide (WP:USEFUL). It would be best if sources could be found to establish notability. I want to point out that I did not nominate this article for deletion out of malice, rather AFD seems to be the best way to judge an article and also effect an improvement. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You effect improvements by contributing knowledge, not by attempting to delete legitimate research.--Jeriaska
  - An article stagnates if it is not exposed to editors who care. If I had not nominated, there would not be improvement. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article was never stagnant and you have effected no improvements whatsoever. There were sufficient internal sources to support this being a notable source from the beginning. Your attempts to delete this article are a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia who wish to know more about this field. Jeriaska —Preceding comment was added at 23:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that the sources in the article assert sufficient notability. There is no real way to back this human judgement up with logical reasoning, sadly. It is perhaps the reason why we do not have a bot-based deletion system. User:Krator (t c) 17:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable website, it is the goto source for video game music coverage. Has interviewed many notable composers, and is considered a reliable source given its incoming links. - hahnch e n 23:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the references are suitable to establish notability. References do not have to claim that a subject is notable; "statement of facts" is fine. The idea is that the very fact that multiple third parties have written about the subject is a demonstration of its importance. — brighterorange (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dare to Dream (Negus album)[edit]

Orphan article on a possibly non notable album. It was by a member of a semi-notable band, but that member doesn't seem to be notable enough for his own page -- is that enough? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the MUSIC gudeline, specifically this section. Unless Steve Negus gets a page, it doesn't really meet the guideline. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like advertising as well. Albums need independent reliable sourcing, and the page isn't providing that, nor am I really finding anything of use on Google. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freshly Squeezed Films[edit]

Non-notable organization. Has been prodded and deprodded. A thorough search for verifiable information for Major Awards shows nothing aside from organization's own website, and not much regarding film festival. Notability can not presently verified or established. Article lacks verifiable material from reliable sources for anything. Optigan13 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I support the AfD process, not the speedy or the prod, as they claim importance, but really is not important. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable, no references, and I cannot find any reliable sources. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The film festival does apparently exist, but is "a citywide juried film festival for high school students."[28] (Search for Sprockets) But much of the film festival mentions for Sprockets are about one of the same name in Toronto"Cincinnati Sprockets" search, and "sprockets film festival" search. - Optigan13 (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTABILITY Marlith ^T/C 05:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This film company is not quite there yet for notability, perhaps the biggest part being that a film company produces recognizable films and this hasn't done that yet. This would be the argument say McDonalds versus your local hamburger joint. Both produce the same material but one has been able to launch its product into perpetuity (50+ years) where the local restauranteur doesn't really care about fame. In time should this co last it may survive a deletion. Notice Bye the way can I alert administrators that an editor of the page User:Montchav has willy-nilly been splashing speedy deletes across multiple other pages in retaliation. .:DavuMaya:. 05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The user you are referring to doesn't appear to be retaliating to anything, and in fact prodded this page. That user appears to be doing notability clean up based on their contributions. It is easy to become overly aggressive in notability cleanup to tag with prod, speedy, and nominating without thorough research, as I have done the same.Optigan13 (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; reliable sources indicating it meets notability are in short supply. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is about a high school project which doesn't necessarily mean it can't be notable; however, in this case, the status is non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should SNOW this. Marlith ^T/C 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a high school based film production company sounds like a school club to me. Maybe they will be notable if they win a national competetion or get written up when some of their members go on to become the next George Lucas.Ga rr ie 02:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Davewild (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2013 in television[edit]

Wikipedia does not peer into the future. A list of putative future television events, especially when it contains unsourced speculation about the nature and contents of those events, is not appropriate encyclopedia material. — Coren ^(talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom. Unsourced speculation about something that may or may not happen, aka CBALL. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 2013 is way too far away to discuss television programming then. WP:CRYSTAL. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It was a good faith edit, but all the same it's an article in violation of the above policy, like several other articles in the past - I recall AfD'ing The Elder Scrolls V for this same reason. Perhaps WP:CRYSTAL could be an exception to NCSD? L337 kybldmstr (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, way too far off to contain anything more than original research/speculation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2008 I can definitely see at this point, 2009 maybe... but 2013?!?! Delete per all of the above, not much more to be said. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 07:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL only thing on the page is the fact that it is the Doctor Who television show's 50th anniversary Doc Strange (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Rudget.talk 17:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:Crystal. Even the channels don't know what they'll be showing in six years time! A1octopus (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only item presently listed is a complete bit of speculation on Doctor Who. No one has made any announcements regarding that series for that far in the future. The only official word is that the BBC will air it in 2010; nothing about actors or producers even that close to now. 23skidoo (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Time to throw a WP:SNOWball at this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzsaw Haircut[edit]

No assertion of notability, barely any sources, and is a literal example of something people made up in school one day, being a student funded publication :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ummmm, yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say delete. Definite NFT article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons plus it looks like a biased political ad article as well. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. With respect to the other mentioned articles, you may want to consider (besides editorial solutions) also proposed deletions, referring to this AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confessor (Sword of Truth)[edit]

I am listing this article for deletion for the following three reasons:

1. It is not notable. The topic is an obscure concept in an equally obscure fantasy series. The novel is already listed on Wikipedia, so perhaps what little material can be salvaged (see 3. below) could be moved there.

2. It is not written in appropriate tone, possibly because...

3. It is rampant plagiarism; most of the text is simply copied verbatim from the original fiction. I do not have the originals at hand (if I did, I'd have opted for SD) but as far as I recall, this is copyrighted stuff.

Freederick (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced, but probably not even notable anyways. If this is important to the novel, then merge there. No need for a separate article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete fancruft. Free of the analysis of the "in universe" content required to be an encyclopedic topic. totally unreferenced, where is the evidence of extensive coverage in secondary sources required by WP:N? Note: exact same problems with Mud People, Wilds, Rang'Shada, Midlands (Sword of Truth), King's Port, Boundary (Sword of Truth), Emperor Jagang (Sword of Truth), Shota (Sword of Truth), Underworld (Sword of Truth), Fire Spring, Richard Rahl, Kahlan Amnell, Westland (Sword of Truth), Southaven (Sword of Truth), Shadow people (Sword of Truth), D'Hara, Boundary warden, Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander, Darken Rahl, Ven Forest, Hawker's Trail, Wizard (Sword of Truth), Skow Swamp, Tamarang, Magic (Sword of Truth), Michael Cypher, George Cypher, Book of Counted Shadows, Seeker of Truth, Nicci (Sword of Truth), Quad (Sword of Truth), First Wizard, Hartland (Sword of Truth), First Councilor, Aum plant, Sword of Truth, Panis Rahl, Night stone, Nathan Rahl, Council of the Midlands. People's Peace Army, Boxes of Orden, Wizard's Rule, Chase (Dell Brandstone), Sorceress (Sword of Truth), Wizard's Keep, Aydindril, Wizard's rock, Emperor Jagang (Sword of Truth), Sisters of the Light, Sisters of the Dark, Tanimura, Palace of the Prophets, Grace (Sword of Truth), and many many many more, all of which are equally unencyclopedic cruft from the same fictional source. For the love of Wiki, how many articles do we have on Proust's masterwork! make it stop! make it stop! make it stop! Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaaah! I only saw this one article (Confessor) that I nominated for deletion, plus the main article about the series. What you have uncovered is frightening. Still, I have mixed feelings about this. Apparently somebody out there cares enough to put in all this misguided labor. Perhaps some remnants can mercifully be incorporated into the main article. The writing is atrocious, though; if this is copied from the original novels (and it probably is--I tried to read one of them a very long time ago) then this is one author whose books I'll never buy. Freederick (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also, there is a Sword of Truth wiki (with 939 articles!?!), it's not like the people fascinated by this fictional world have no other venue for their creative energy. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't have a copy of Wizard's First Rule handy, but a lot of the phrases used here ring very familiar. And the articles Pete.Hurd points out just make me cry... many of them cover trivial plot elements, and every one I looked at contained text which looked like it was paraphrased directly from the books. I smell a mass AfD in the near future. WikiProject Sword Of Truth was supposed to clean this stuff up, but seems to have gone dead.

Note that I'm specifically not recommending a merge, as this article is heavily tainted by plagiarism. Mentioning Confessors in an article on the series is appropriate, but none of the content here is clearly safe to reuse. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete In an article this size, with that much in-universe material, it is nearly impossible to not quote directly from the text, or at the very least re-arrange the wording used in the book(s). There's also a fair bit in there that I'm pretty sure isn't in any of the books, leaving it to be pure fabrication. Confessors are a major part of the history tied up in the series, and if this had any literary commentary like it should, I would probably be at least neutral on the issue. However, it doesn't, and there is very little worth salvaging. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment on the massive list of articles above: Note that I haven't looked at any of those, having only read the Confessor article, but I would not nominate several of those for deletion without making a very significant effort to clean them up first. You've got every one of the main characters in there (some twice), and a fair number of major places as well. I do agree that many of them have absolutely no reason to be here at all - Michael Cypher only had a relatively minor role in the first book, where he was killed almost immediately upon appearing in person. I know you're not nominating them now, I just wanted to throw that out in case someone felt like making a mass nomination based on your list. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with your assessment. It's entirely possible (and, in fact, vital) to write an article about a fictional topic without quoting the text either directly or indirectly; for example, Jedi only uses two brief quotations. On the other hand, Darken Rahl is almost entirely composed of cobbled-together quotes from the novels. So are (from a random sampling) Wizard's rock, Quad (Sword of Truth), and even Seeker of Truth. I'll put this bluntly: As they stand, virtually all of these articles are serious copyright violations. Even if their subjects are notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines on fictional subjects (which many of them aren't - the guiding principle is relevance outside of the subject's fictional universe), most would have to be rewritten from scratch anyway. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously Hersfold, take a look at In Search of Lost Time. That's much more like what an encyclopedia article is like. It's an article on a series of novels, very influential ones, note how it focuses on topics other than trivial minutia of plot. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've opened a further AfD on various minor Sword of Truth locations. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the reasons described above. jj137 (Talk) 16:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mingus[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Unlikely to be expandable beyond a stub when original research and related material sourced from conflict of interest are removed. Closeapple (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per own nomination. ~~100% autobiography,~~ complete with ~~self-~~critique as "internationally recognized" and "prolific". --Closeapple (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See note below by subject of the article, who is also a Wikipedia editor. Still 100% WP:OR. --Closeapple (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of WP:RS reliable secondary sources, let alone the "extensive coverage" required to meet WP:N. ~~I think that Johnny Reb Gaming Society and CHARGE! (magazine) almost certainly fail WP:N as well.~~ Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:N so delete unless some sources can be provided (however those sources need to be RS). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am flattered by this article, but to set the record crystal clear, I was NOT the author of it, nor was it created with my consent or knowledge. My son wrote it thinking it would be nice to recognize my books and publications, but you may readily delete it. Scott Mingus (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Coldwell[edit]

Unsourced BLP page of NN developer that appears to have been authored and edited extensively by its own subject, inventor of an extensive suite of redlinked technologies, with article-lede notability assertions that include "worked with Matt Dillion at BEST". Probably a real nice guy, but what is he doing in the WP writing pages about himself? --- tqbf 03:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: disputed prod. I apologize in advance if I'm wrong and User:Cryonator isn't the "Cryo" mentioned in the article. --- tqbf 03:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to be notable. Also, no reliable sources to verify notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with nominator, unless someone's able to establish notability really fast. --Raistlin (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What part of unfinished was misunderstood? Either way, it's irrelevant because my "notability" is not riding on the shirt tail of others, but simply explaining details about the startup that Matt and I did. Even more interesting is that I was using the template of other semi-biographical pages as a template. Clearly, though since I'm not appearing in the pages of slashdot or whatever the latest cool thing, I retract the whole thing. I apologize for using wikipedia as a basis for knowledge rather than misinformed. I do appreciate the spanking and rather than helping me improve the article, resorting to simply wanting to delete it. -- William J. Coldwell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryo@os10.org (talk • contribs) 01:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Generally, articles written by their own subjects are discouraged on Wikipedia. See WP:AUTO for details. Furthermore, articles that cannot draw on reliable secondary sources cannot be improved on WP; they are unverifiable. Verifiability and notability are key principles of Wikipedia. Perhaps you should instead write about some of the myriad of interesting technologies you've contributed to over the years, and leave it to someone else to write the article about you. --- tqbf 02:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Street Town Centre[edit]

Spammy article on non-notable lifestyle center in Alabama, seems to fail WP:RS (only sources I found are about the center's opening, nothing else). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the article would fall under "Wikipedia is not a directory" and the rest shows that this place isn't notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This lifestyle center is as "notable" as any other lifestyle center that has an article on Wikipedia, such as Eastern Shore Centre. And the center just opened three weeks ago- of course the only sources you will find are about the opening. The "directory" of stores can be easily shortened/deleted- I admit that it has gotten too long and extensive. Huntsville89 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the above statement. It only opened a few weeks ago. Izzy007 Talk 00:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Sources exist and have been added to the article. The laundry list of non-anchor tenants has been removed. Alansohn (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No matter what type of label you slap on it, it's just a variegated strip mall with expansive architecture and overpriced amenities. Unless it is exceptionally big (it's not) or has many features that no other "lifestyle center" can boast (it doesn't), it's not notable except to our local yuppies. Sharpvisuals (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ☎ 15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until The Light Takes Us[edit]

Non-notable genre documentary that hasn't yet come out. No independent references. Search term ""Until The Light Takes Us" -blog" only returns 1350 gHits many of which are non-independent advertising. -- WebHamster 03:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CBALL. Since there are no reliable sources to verify anything about this, lets wait a while before re-creating it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid in Slovakia and the Czech Republic[edit]

Here we go again. Just when Wikipedians had reason to believe the "apartheid" gamesmanship was finally over, along comes this page. This page was obviously created in response to the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and there isn't anything here that can't be covered under Antiziganism. Speedy delete, the sooner the better. CJCurrie (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment I would request that readers that note of the precedent set at Allegations of Chinese apartheid. CJCurrie (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What precedent? There is no precedent. --Leifern (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's an odd thing to say. In the case CJ mentions, there was an admin (who appeared not to have written many articles himself) who closed against the wishes of the majority of !voters, then offered no comprehensible rationale. Not something to emulate, on any level. IronDuke 01:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll admit that had some influence, but I found this in the news when I looked up Slovakia. Possibly I should have simply made an article on the European Court of Human Rights verdict. Or it could be a redirect or some such to Relations between ethnic Czechs and Roma, but that is specific to one nation. The situation in both nations is at times discussed simultaneously in the news due to historical relations. The dropping of "apartheid" would be fine, except that was the word used by some outlets.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could have added the information to Antiziganism. There are any number of steps you could have taken, rather than re-opening the "apartheid pages" discussion. (You are familiar with prior controversies on this front, correct?) 04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That refers to all Romany prejudices or concerns. I think there's enough specific to Romania or Czech or Slovakia to warrant some separate articles.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & SALT: To avoid the inevitable problems that will surface. This is POV/OR. Both countries already listed here and that is just fine. Also, per the previous consensus on this sort of thing, which is here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above --lk (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't arbcom already deal with this? Delete, salt, and refer the editors to the arbcom decision in question. It could be a good-faith creation, but people need to be reminded of the recent mess articles like this have caused.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom did not "deal" with the issue. All kinds of accusations were made against certain editors, but none could be sustained. --Leifern (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not fully aware of the history. I knew of the Israeli article and that such articles were not to be done in a "tit for tat" manner. However this is not an allegation on an enemy of Israel or anything. In addition I assumed such articles would be allowed if reliable sources alleged a nation committed the "crime of apartheid" and that it's not purely as "revenge." (I am not particularly pro or anti Israel. I find comparing them to apartheid rather disgusting, but their government does many things I dislike and in some respects I think Zionism was a bad idea) The news article used the word "apartheid", as do others, and this seemed to be an allegation of a system of institutionalized racial/ethnic discrimination. I don't think the allegation sounds fair, in fact I think it sounds rather hyperbolic. Still that's the word they used and if apartheid is okay to allege of one nation I'm not sure why two is going beyond the pale. I might prefer "ethnic relations in the former Czechoslovakia" or something, but maybe that's too wordy or something.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteand incorporate any relevant material into other articles. As I note on the article's talk page, the main source cited, a report by the Czech government to the UN Committe on the Elimination of Racisl Discrimination, does not even make, let alone establish, any such accusations. This article seems like a POV fork, and should be removed in this form. RolandR (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to nominate this morning, glad to see it is taken care of already. This appears to be another point-making exercise, but also this time this info can already be found in a variety of places such as antiziganism, Allegations_of_apartheid#Countries_whose_practices_have_been_compared_to_apartheid, or Romani people#Contemporary_issues. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as other "allegations of X apartheid" per ArbCom, Centralized Discussion, et al. The subject and its sources may be treated in antiziganism, romani people, Relations between ethnic Czechs and Roma, or whatever article, as fit. --victor falk (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand now. These articles are not to exist excepting the one on Israel because it gets grandfathered in. It might have been nice to know earlier that it has nothing to do with whether you can source it, etc. (I replaced the source Roland talks about) Feel free to delete.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "per Arbcom," as the Arbcom made no ruling or decision on this matter. --Leifern (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T. Anthony, I don't think you do understand. This page is filled with incorrect statements. The ArbCom did not decide that "Allegations of (nation) apartheid" were "not to exist", nor did they decide that the one about Israel should exist, or what its name should be. The ArbCom does not make content decisions. In fact, in the case in question, the ArbCom did not make any decision at all; they dismissed the case without a decision. What a majority (I believe) of the arbitrators did say is that "false advocacy" on behalf of an article is disruptive. Nobody said that you cannot create an article in good faith. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to improve it some. It only started a few days ago or so. Although someone suggested to me it be renamed to be more like Segregation in Northern Ireland and that's not a bad idea. Although if deletion is preferred I don't really care either I guess.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only "gamesmanship" that I see here is by the nominator, CJCurrie -- and by Tarc, who previously "prodded" the article with a similarly obnoxious, accusatory, bad-faith-assuming statement. If you think an article should be deleted, you are free to nominate it for deletion, with an explanation of what Wikipedia policies or guidelines have not been satisfied. (Such as, "It's not notable", which I would probably agree with in this case.) What you have done instead is to make just about the most blatant assumption of bad faith I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The person who created this article was not involved in the arbitration or in the previous articles, as far as I know. The fact that he may have known about the arbitration is irrelevant. As I said in my response to one of T. Anthony's comments, the ArbCom never said that an "Allegation of (nation) apartheid" article could not be created. (They didn't actually make a decision at all.) I don't think any of the arbitrators said that.) It looks to me like T. Anthony has not violated any policies nor any ArbCom decisions in creating this article. It also looks to me like you (CJCurrie) -- and perhaps others -- are taking the ArbCom case, twisting around what happened, and using that false version of reality to intimidate at least one editor who has not been involved. Perhaps the ArbCom would be interested in your conduct, which paints a false picture of what they did. My suggestion would be that you withdraw this nomination and, if you wish, make it again, the right way. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article had the same problems of notability that the others did, as has been noted. I figured a simple prod would have taken care of it quietly, and that the certainty (as many of your allies seem to have gone to ground during and after the ArbCom fizzle) of an AfD would just be prolonging the inevitable. You seem insistent on tossing a hand-grenade into the proceedings unfortunately, with some rather wild conspiracy theories an accusations of bad faith. Of course it goes without saying that the call to withdraw the AfD is groundless. Tarc (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "apartheid" might not be common enough to be notable and I concede that was an error on my part. However the issue of these two nations having or possibly having segregation is certainly notable. I've read about in the news for years and it's been the subject of court cases or political disputes.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wild conspiracy theories and allegations of bad faith"? Your prod tag said (in part) "This seems to be yet another in a long line of apartheid point-making, i.e.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid" CJCurrie's nomination refers to "gamesmanship" and says "This page was obviously created in response to the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid..." Who is making the wild conspiracy theories and allegations of bad faith? Who is talking about "allies" and tossing "hand-grenades"? Not me. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness a discussion of the Israel article was when I first started thinking of whether other such articles should be done. Although I had no intention of doing one if I couldn't source or justify it and I gave up on the idea after awhile. Then I saw the news on some Slovakian situation. I love the defense of me, but I guess I did do wrong. I originally wanted this just to be on Slovakia in truth, but the two situations seem so connected. Still Segregation in Slovakia, with a link to Svinia, would've been better.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this nomination has to be one of the worst violations of WP:AGF I have seen. The nomination should be tossed out on that basis alone. Afteir dragging these spurous allegations of conspiracies all the way through arbitration without getting anywhere (except wasting a whole lot of time), CJCurrie is resorting to hallucinations as a basis for a nomination. --Leifern (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Talk about violating rules. Looking at the comments above, not too many people agree with you, and not a lot of people (who have commented) think the article should be deleted, and those comments are based on Guidelines and Policies. Also, it appears you should be reminded of a few policies yourself, like WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL (telling somebody they are hallucinating isn't a civil thing to do, if it isnt a Personal Attack). So, welcome to the AfD discussion about the article; Do you have any comments about the content of the article, or are you just here to comment on the contributers themselves? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the nomination? The only argument related to the article is that the nominator thinks the information in the article could be covered in another article. Everything else is about imagined motivations of the editors. It's pretty self-incriminating. As for whether others agree with me, completely irrelevant. --Leifern (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The apartheid analogy itself doesn't appear to be a subject of discussion among RSs writing about Czech and Slovakian discrimination against Roma. That's the crystal-clear acid test for articles of this kind, whether written in good faith or concocted in bad.--G-Dett (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to just emphasize what’s been said above: there is no arbcom decision on articles of this type, express or implied, and anyone may comment or !vote here, edit this article, or create any such article as long as they obey WP policy. I can see how folks would be confused, but no, really, arbcom doesn't rule on content. I would disagree with Leifern and 6SJ7 that this needs to be withdrawn and resubmitted--the result looks like a foregone conclusion to me. They are right, however, to point out that paranoid intimations about editorial intent are not helping. IronDuke 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of "foregone conclusion" do you see here? There are a number of delete votes, no keeps, and some scattered vituperations about previous editorial clashes. Why withdraw and resubmit? Wouldn't it make more sense to speedy delete per WP:SNOW and common sense?--G-Dett (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, perhaps you misunderstand. The foregone conclusion of which I speak is that this article will be deleted. I believe that would happen even if the AfD were properly redone. I don't see the point of withdrawing and resubmitting it. Just let it run its natural course. IronDuke 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it was I who suggested that the nomination should be withdrawn. The suggestion is mostly tongue-in-cheek. What I actually think should happen is that the closing admin should close this AfD as "No decision" or something like that, due to the statements made in the nomination, which have nothing to do with the merits of the article. I know that this will not happen, but I can say it anyway, can't I? The last time I made a "suggestion" like this was in response to a couple of nominations by... why, it was you, G-Dett. And actually, some of your statements in those nominations (one of which went on for several paragraphs as I recall) were actually worse than those of CJCurrie in this one. As I said back then, I do not think people should be rewarded for making obnoxiously-worded AfD nominations that are full of personal (or group) attacks. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you realize that your suggestion to close the debate will not happen. Also, you should notice the consensus that is building here. As of this moment, there is no reason the debate would be closed as "no consensus" (which is the phrase commonly used). - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest "no consensus". At the moment at least, that would not be accurate. What I am suggesting is that AfD nominations that are written for the purpose of spreading conflict and controversy, rather than just seeking a deletion of an article, should be considered invalid. As the essay says, process is important. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"What I actually think should happen is ... close this AfD as "No decision"". Okay....I suppose you would like to see the article kept? Is that why you are saying these things? Also, you do not know the intentions of the nominating user, however you do have to AGF. There is a clear consensus building here, so sorry, but whatever intentions the nom had, doesn't matter at this point. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can suppose whatever you wish, but what I said is what I said. I have not "voted", I have made comments and suggestions about the procedure that is being followed. As for knowing someone else's intentions, take a look at the nomination. The nominator made an assumption about what the creator of the article intended, and as it turns out, he was wrong. As for "what matters", we shall see. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I feel particular consideration should be paid to the article's creator comments, T. Anthony, especially [29], [30] and [31]--victor falk 04:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah basically I go for renaming or deletion. Although possibly a Slovakia-specific article, as we have a Czech specific one, on Roma issues could be done. Still deletion seems preferred so if that's what's wanted okay. I just hope people here chill on each other as some above are getting overheated. I'm not any kind of activist for Roma, Israelis, or whatever. It just seemed fair and sensible to me at the time as I could source it, but no biggie.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see that the article Allegations of apartheid includes several countries with allegations of apartheid, and each of these needs expansion. These are serious matters that should not be ignored, and, being sourced and verifiable, they have their place in Wikipedia. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of them has the form "allegation of X apartheid", except israel. The others are called Bumiputra, Social situation in the French suburbs, Taliban treatment of women, Racial segregation in the United States, White Australia policy...--victor falk 08:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. There is Social apartheid in Brazil and Tourist apartheid in Cuba. -- Gabi S. (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep no arguments for deletion on content grounds have been made, including in the nomination. AfD is not the place for sorting out content disputes, and we don't delete because we don't like the title. Tewfik^Talk 11:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read this page again, Tewfik.--G-Dett (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again, only if you still don't see it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the content is acceptable but not the title, we move, merge, or rename --victor falk 01:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name "apartheid" really was too inflammatory. Ideally there should be no "allegations of apartheid" article and hopefully the one on Israel can be renamed as well. I think a rename might be worth considering.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tewfik, are you being dishonest, or did you just not read all of the discussions? The delete entries here make cite non-notabiity, POV, original research, among others. Are those not "content grounds" ? Tarc (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page was obviously created in response to the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid - CJCurrie (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't arbcom already deal with this? - Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be another point-making exercise - Tarc (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being dishonest. If secondary sources do not support the title, then it should be renamed. Tewfik^Talk 22:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and there isn't anything here that can't be covered under Antiziganism. CJCurrie (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC) The content has been addressed, Tewfik, from the nomination on down.--G-Dett (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barely, and only after the tirade of nasty comments. Nominations like this should be stricken on procedural grounds, and the nominator should be sanctioned for disruption. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, a new Arbcom case should be opened to handle CJ's comment: Just when Wikipedians had reason to believe the "apartheid" gamesmanship was finally over, along comes this page. What a tirade! I don't think I've ever read anything so disgusting and execrable; CJ should be perma-banned. And the offended party, T. Anthony, should be blocked for a week for failing to be properly offended. How dare he discuss the issues instead of hyperventilating.--G-Dett (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was that supposed to be sarcasm? I couldn't tell. I have teenage children, so it's the normal mode of discourse in my household. As for the part about a new ArbCom case... well, I was made a "defendant" in an ArbCom case just for voting in a few AfD's, so I guess it doesn't take much get an ArbCom case started these days. Misuse of the AfD procedure by using a nomination as a soapbox, as CJCurrie did here, and as you did a couple of times, seems a much better candidate for that sort of attention. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel some kinship with your teenage children. I'm sure you take it in stride and they adore you for it. Your house sounds like fun, 6SJ7.--G-Dett (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 05:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Driven[edit]

Only thing this band has going for them is the label. That is still not that strong. This band is not notable. Metal Head (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets criterion #5 of WP:MUSIC (multiple albums on a notable label), and Polydor is a notable label. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm about to add a source that notes three singles which charted in the lower echelons of the UK pop charts. Chubbles (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Does meet MUSIC. Also, another source has been added by Chubbles. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple albums on Polydor and charting singles (even if they're waaaaay down where they need scuba gear to survive) tend to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that that's international success, as the band's Irish. Chubbles (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I would go as far as calling them a "success."Metal Head (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - UK Charts are only usually considered reliable down to No. 75 - fchd (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what makes a chart position less reliable in the lower regions? Also, the band is Irish; they charted in their home country, as well, I imagine, but the Irish Singles Chart doesn't keep archives on its site from before 2007. Might be a fun project for me over Thanksgiving break at the library... Chubbles (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)+[reply]

Because back in 1996, the UK charts were based on a (very small) sample of shops. On such a small sample, it becomes easy to extrapolate higher positions because the number of sales can easily rank them. When you get down to singles selling 300-500 copies per week (which would have been a reasonable estimate for ranks 175-200, the proportion sold in chart return shops may have been 10 or 20. Extrapolating this nationwide is not particularly sound. Things are different now, when virtually all sales, physical or download, are recorded and used for chart compilation. - fchd (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Deyerle[edit]

Non notable ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely see the assertion of notability, but do not believe this article meets WP:BIO. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Archery may not be the most popular sport but World Champion and World Record holder easily meet "competed at highest amateur level". Has enough coverage present to substantiate the claim to athletic notability. Horrorshowj (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Junior world record holder, but of an obscure sporting event. Notable, at least within that community. --lk (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Article is too weak in general and the fact she is an ametuer world record holder isn't good enough. I know a guy who is the world record holder for paper clips in his mouth but I wouldn't list it here.---Iconoclast Horizon 13:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment- She holds the 'world record' in the junior amatuer division for her class, not an overall world record of anything susbstantial.---Iconoclast Horizon 13:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete junior amateur record. JJL (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was nice of her, though, to take out the stuff about her new puppy and the wonderful guy she is dating and where he works. But that is still on all of the mirror sites out there.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Doc glasgow (Speedy deleted per (CSD G7), only editor has blanked the page. using TW). Non-admin closure. shoy (^words _words) 13:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FUR...You Deserve It[edit]

Prod removed. Non-notable video clip at best. A bunch of ext links and 'see also's have been added, but still no refs, or even links to the clip, supposedly on YouTube. Only thing I can find with reliable sources under that name is a single skit from a 1984 ep of SNL. Ravenna1961 (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources to verify notability. Google search brings nothing to the table, at least in the first 1,000 results. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being shown on a TV home-videos programme or Youtube does not make notability, and no sources are provided to even prove this. --DAJF (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged the article for Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G7 as the author has blanked the page twice. --DAJF (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - jc37 11:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1[edit]

These DVD releases are already adequately covered by Looney Tunes Golden Collection (at least at revision [32]). Individual articles for every DVD with full lists of the 50-60 cartoons in each set are completely unnecessary. Wikipedia isn't a DVD catalog. Collectonian (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I've been thinking about this one since it came up. My first thoughts are to keep them. The box set itself probably is acceptable for an article. They have lots of information that couldn't be merged, as then the main article would be way too long. I may be persuaded to change my comment, but as of now, I say keep. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the articles have lots of information that can't be merged. All of the articles are mostly just a big list of some of what's on each disc, which is generally unnecessary and not in keeping with the way most DVD releases are handled, even sets. Even the huge Star Trek collection DVDs don't have lists of every single episode, not even for the mixed theme collections. At best, a summary of special features and what kinds of shorts are in each set would seem to be all that is needed for a Wikipedia article. Which cartoon is in which set, if any, is better covered Looney Tunes & Merrie Melodies filmography (as it appears the lists in the individual articles are actually not complete, but "highlights" that cover 1/3-1/2 the sets... Collectonian (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is way too much info for each volume so each volume must be kept. Otherwise the main article would be way too long. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Too much information would be lost with their deletion. These are important remasterings and reissues of classic, theatrically-released cartoons. You cannot compare this to Star Trek because these cartoons did not pre-exist in "seasons". The lists that would be deleted do not exist on other pages. DavidRF (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Valuable index. jengod (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUMMARY. A single article would be too long; this represents a reasonable and apporopriate split of a larger article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Does any other DVD collection of television shows or cartoons have their own page, no. no it does not. User:Jayron32's proclaimation of a "single article would be too long" is wrong, as that doesn't matter. it's also just a list of what cartoons are on the DVD! Doc Strange (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: Read Walt Disney Treasures. The Tramp, as stated below, proves there are other theatrical cartoon collections with separate articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What about WAX? Also, it would make the original article too long, and that is partly a reason to keep it. There are many details in the individual articles that would be lost if deleted. Long articles are being split up into separate articles on a regular basis. There is even a guideline about this. That guideline recommends that article try and keep below the 32KB mark (if all of these are added together, it would be about 50KB). Although the length of an article is not alone, a reason to divide it up, these are already divided, and the are properly divided in an "encyclo-positive" way. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Walt Disney Treasures does have all waves on a seprate articels and list all contents on the DVD so if Looney Tunes Collection is deleted then it throwns the Disney Treasures articels in to qustion and this is the 2 of the major animation studios in animation history in USA and both studios diserve to have there 2 most presatageus DVD collection in articel of there own. The Tramp (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 22:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Make these five articles into one article with a section for each volume. Yes, it would be long, but it's just a list of contents anyway. Users aren't going to be hunting for information within the article, so the length would not make it confusing. Plus, I see an advantage to being able to search for a title on one article and see which volume includes it. Torc2 (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: These articles in question deserve to remain, because, as Torc2 said, the Walt Disney Treasures DVD waves each have separate articles. And, as The Tramp and DavidRF said, many of the cartoons of both Disney and Warner Bros. are justly regarded as the finest of American animation. Why not list which cartoons are included in each DVD box set in separate articles? Each article contains unique information regarding the DVD sets (including the supplementary material). I say keep. — Cinemaniac (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: So long as the articles contain information more than just a list of the disc's contents, they're relevant here. This information could include professional reviews, press documentation, notes about how the shorts were chosen to be included in each collection, historical data about the documentaries included, archive material, commentators interviewed, etc. —scarecroe (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except, none of them contain any of that info, and as no sources have been added to any of the five (nor the main), I suspect such information would not be readily available. All of these articles are just a semi-complete listing of the disk contents. Collectonian (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"none of them contain any of that info" In which case attention tags should be placed on the articles to encourage expansion. —scarecroe (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Maldonado Jr.[edit]

I previously proposed the deletion of this article but an editor removed the PROD tag without addressing those concerns. I'm nominating it now for the same reason: The article cites no sources and is chiefly comprised of original research. It does not meet the notability criteria at WP:BIO and appears to be vanity. If anything in the article can be sourced (I've looked with Google and found no secondary sources), I'm in favour of a rewrite and removal of the unverifiable material. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 00:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per BIO and OR. Also, great lack of sources. I don't see how he is notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Per WP:BIO, WP:NOR, WP:ADVERT, and possible WP:COI. --Strothra (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is a single source resumè.---Iconoclast.Horizon 06:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
ATTENTION ADMIN-Has anyone looked at this? Why has this guy's resumè been up here so long??Delete and salt so he won't keep coming back.--Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. I felt they presented a far stronger argument, and when I applied appropriate weight to arguments about "inherent notability", "usefulness" and "already been nominated and kept" I feel there exists a consensus to delete. If any user wishes to contest this decision for whatever reason, please use deletion review. Daniel 12:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Bush, Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete Not indepdently notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN. While there are references to him on the smoking gun, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a tabloid. It is likely only to attract violations to WP:BLP and possible legal issues. Per WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." Strothra (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I fail to see how he is notable. Notable relatives, yes. I don't find his petty criminal record, his volunteer work, nor his political endorsements, a sufficient reason to call him notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being related to an elected official and being arrested do not satisfy WP:BIO. 04:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs)
Weak Keep As the article currently stands, there are reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. As happens far too often, WP:BLP is abused to mean any article about any living person that has anything that might be considered negative, which is simply not the case. Apparently, the media has found Jeb Jr. sufficiently newsworthy to merit coverage over an extended period of time on a variety of subjects, which addresses the potential issues from the also-irrelevant WP:NOT#NEWS. I will consider amending my vote as additional sources are added. Alansohn (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: This article is primarily being used in a defamatory manner and is generally biased. I can pull up the address of my local hardware store on-line and in the Yellow Pages but that still doesn't make it notable. A tabloid or newspaper story does not make him notable either, nor does relationship to his father. This article somewhat smacks of a semi-political agenda in order to add defamation to his family's character. I got drunk, had sex and got caught and my father was a politician but that still isn't good enough to put it on Wiki.--Iconoclast Horizon 05:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment-"He had sex, got drunk, went to college, and now works for a living"; that is not notable by itself.---Iconoclast Horizon 07:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is the Third AfD attempt for this page and it follows an incorrect attempt to PROD it after the first two attempts failed. Moheroy (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:NOTAGAIN.--WaltCip (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Also, just because this is the third attempt and the other two failed is not a valid argument.---Iconoclast Horizon 07:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete consensus can change, and I believe in this case it should. The coverage of him is trivial at best. It ammounts to two blips on a police blotter. At best, this should be merged into his father's article. There isn't enough here to build an article around. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue for me is whether some readers would come to Wikipedia to get information on this subject. It's certainly true that, if he weren't related to a President and a Governor, the answer would be No. Back here in the real world, though, he is related to them, so people will be interested. I quote with approval this comment from the first AfD (with the "Keep" unbolded so as to not confuse the closing admin):

Keep as although the incidents are in one snese merely embarrassing they received international press[33][34][35][36]; some of the coverage draws inferences between those episodes and more notable relatives[37]; and some coverage questions his father's role in the lack of formal charges.[38]. --Dhartung | Talk 22:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, while a renewed attempt at deletion is permitted, a third attempt in less than a year seems excessive to me. At a minimum, the nominator in such a situation should notify those who participated in the previous discussions. JamesMLane t c 09:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This is nothing more than an libelous article masquerading as a Bio, which is against wiki policy. It was also listed under category US Politics, which it is not. There is obvious bias with primary contributor(s) of this article. One day he may do something political or otherwise but on his merits at this point this article is simply an attempt to continue muckraking the Bush Family. I don't care for George W. but I still don't think this article about his brother's youngest son is meritable. ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your charge that the article is "libelous" would deserve consideration if you were able to specify one single solitary inaccuracy in it. Your charge of bias by the primary contributor(s) violates WP:AGF and is irrelevant besides; if a biased contributor makes an edit that complies with WP:NPOV, is properly sourced, etc., then the edit stands, regardless of the editor's motive. JamesMLane t c 09:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless he does something else, (write a book, create a scandal, go into state or national politics, (or starts a rock band, ha), etc), this guy is destined to be a genealogical footnote and that is not notable.---Iconoclast Horizon 02:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)

Delete - non-notable Bushcruft. Wikipedia isn't for documenting teenage sexual indiscretions of the nephews of the famous.--Doc^g 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Nephew to the President and son of one of the most prominent governors, heir to political dynasty (notability may not be inherited but political dynasties are and he's clearly received some of his family's fame), significant independent coverage in major news outlets of his political endorsements and relationship to 2008 presidential race (CBS, Wall Street Journal, Slate)[39] Whatever his earlier claims to notability and whatever happened in the prior 2 decisions to keep, as of now his notability is his political connections and is clearly sourced and satisfies WP:BIO on that.Wikidemo (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two news stories don't make an article. The article focuses on two gossipy incidents - there doesn't seem to be enough material to write a balanced biography - creating WP:BLP problems. WjBscribe 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so he's the youngest son of a US Governor, that doesn't make him notable. The two minor brushes with the law also don't make him notable. RMHED (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP- reads as quite a smear in its current form, as there isn't much to say about him apart from his arrests. Plus notability is not inherited.Merkinsmum (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the arrests could he be considered notable? And if that's the sole reason for his notability doesn't that violate WP:BLP1E?? Xymmax (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, for the incident that occurred at age 16, he was not even arrested...Xymmax (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the links provided by Dhartung in the comment I quoted above, you'll see that one aspect of notability is the published charge that the non-arrest was the result of his father's intervention. I personally have never had sex in a parking lot so I don't know how often people caught in flagrante are charged with public lewdness or the like, but it doesn't seem implausible. JamesMLane t c 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Son of a president, yes. Son of a governor, no. Nephew of a president, still no. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry folks, he's a Bush, he's notable. Curious Blue (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's known, but that's hardly the point. The question is, can we write a fair and balanced biography on this person? Is sex in a car encyclopedic? If the answer to that is no, but he's "notable" just as existing, then we can "note" his existence on his father's article. Oh wait....we do. This is why notability is a crap deletion/inclusion criterion.--Doc^g 00:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Curious Blue, which part of WP:NOTE or WP:BIO say that being a Bush is notable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passed two discussions already, can be factually verified and is a member of one of the most noteworthy political families in American history. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Consensus can change. There is nothing wrong with nominating this again. Using the past discussions as a keep reason (or part of a keep reason) isn't a real reason. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Please can we skip all the arguments about the noteworthiness of being a son or nephew of someone, or of drunkenness or public sex? That's not how things are supposed to work here: we don't make our own assessments of notability. As a tertiary source, wikipedia records subjects which have already received substantial coverage elsewhere, and there is no evidence that this particular person has received that substantial coverage. That's all there is to it: either the coverage is there or it isn't. It wouldn't matter if he was a close relative of every head of are in the planet and had orgies in every city in the world, unless there was substantial coverage of that in multiple reliable sources … and there isn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Pigman☿ 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belasagar, Kulpahar[edit]

Unreferenced, tiny stub, only google hits hit wikipedia or mirrors. mrholybrain 's talk 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to be notable, nor in need of this article. If it is important, a merge and redirect to Uttar Pradesh may be best. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Though most of the hits are mirrors, I was able to pull up at least 6 external sources to verify that is of a minor significance to agriculture and tourism in the region. Needs to be cleaned and cited, though.---Iconoclast Horizon 06:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable as far as I can tell. I live next to Marsh Creek State Park, which is a tiny little watershed in Pennsylvania... barely notable except for the very local residents... yet we have a substantial wikipedia article, and there are easily 50 external references available. How much less notable must this place be to have really no subtantive references.--Pearrari (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by long practice all, all such geographic features are notable. the point of such a convention is to remove the need for debates such as this one, about the relative merits of small bodies of water. There is no rule in any case that many references are necessary to demonstrate notability--if there are two reliable sources, its enough. Please, however, add them now to the article so we can see without all having to look them up independently. DGG (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Dgg said, all geographical features are notable and we have had many prior AfDs certifying this. I would also like to point out that you will not find any sources on the internet about a lake in Rajasthan and that does not mean that it is not cited in many references. Having worked on many articles about India I know that there are very few reliable sources about anything in India on the internet. Wikipedia is by far the best resource on the internet about India and most of the sites copy material from wikipedia. So even finding 6 sources about this lake is quite an achievement. If Marsh Creek State Park has a very substantive article right now, let us hope that this one too will be good one day. But as to the notability, both are equally notable per established practices at wiki. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late Night Specials[edit]

Unnotable short film. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 01:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable, and unsourced. It has been here since March, which is plenty of time to improve. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should also put up the director Jeremy Mayall for AfD as well — I didn't find anything notable about him when I glanced through his article. Looks like it's a self-promo. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Delete arguments were based on apparent lack of notability. Keep argument was that notability is established through its presence at certain shows, e.g. Frieze Art Fair, which is one of the top art venues in the world and to which leading galleries are only invited by a jury. Please note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument. The article certainly needs attention and I hope the editors wishing to keep it will do some work on it. Tyrenius (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rivington Arms[edit]

Delete- This is not a promotional space for an art gallery.---Iconoclast Horizon 01:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Does not appear to be notable. 15,000+ ghits but they seem to be even listings on forums, and others are not related to this specific venue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Agree with above.Metal Head (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the 109 in Category:Contemporary art galleries are less notable than this, which exhibits at several important shows and has 3 blue-link artists. There is a case for a massacre of this category, but as things are, this should stay as the article, though poor, asserts notability successfully. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Question about notability, esp. for a gallery only established in 2001. JNW (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Johnbod's point re: the entire category has merit. I noticed at least one gallery in this category that opened in 2006 (!). Distinctions can be made between established museums for contemporary art, galleries of notable repute, and those that are trying to establish themselves, and are enjoying a little free promotion. JNW (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnbod (talk) this article needs lots of improvement though. Category:Contemporary art galleries does need to be thinned and edited at the very least, although there are certain museums and historical inclusions there that still have merit. Modernist (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The article needs much work but this is a genuine concept so there are no policy grounds to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediocre American Man Trilogy[edit]

I don't think it should be deleted, but it was "prodded" and I believe it may be contestable. I think it may be kept if in fact a real thing (I know the two films are intended to be part of a loose trilogy, but am not sure if it was named). Tim Thomason 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source. humblefool ® 01:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Some of these sources just need to be incorporated into the article. It is a real thing. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Will Ferrell. I don't believe there are really enough sources formally treating this as a trilogy besides the arguably jocular comments of the creators. --Dhartung | Talk 09:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I placed the prod), or merge as per Dhartung if there is anything to merge. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the article for the claimed third movie has been deleted three times for the same reason. There are various rumor sites that refer to a third film, but I could not find any reliable sources on the topic. Removing Wikipedia from the search above causes the yield to drop to under 200 hits. Most of the article is original synthesis pointing out similarities between the two existing movies. Dekimasu よ! 00:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are sources and it's a real enough series. Kuralyov (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until we get reliable sources for the third movie. I am inherently sceptical of claims that an actor will play Rusty Butt. It sounds like a name Bart Simpson would use in a call to Moe's. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the unverified third movie should have any bearing on this page. It should cover the two films and mention the intention of Ferrell for a third movie of some type. All the Rusty whatchamacallit references should be removed from Wikipedia obviously.--Tim Thomason 23:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:SYNTH, by itself, is enough to delete. Clean up, source, re-write. Bearian (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 15:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sycamore Trails Pool[edit]

no assertion of notability. No sources to verify information. This "pool" reportedly won an award back in 1997, but the organization that doled out the reward does not even have a Wikipedia article Keeper | 76 00:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge & Redirect: ~~If that award is something special,~~ Merge the info into Miamisburg, Ohio and redirect the page there. ~~Otherwise, it isn't notable, so delete.~~ - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Rjd. jj137 (Talk) 01:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the award is from a national group with thousands of members. If anything, this group may merit on an article in its own right. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming that is correct, would you still be against a merge and redirect? - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not be opposed to a merge and redirect without deleting (i.e. in case if the pool achieves further notability, it would then be easy to restore and expand the article). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article consists of one line which is atributed to an unreliable source, and so is not verifyable - the award does not seem to be prominent and even if proven probably wouldn't supply the depth of coverage to establish notability. [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Merge and redirect. I'm about as inclusionist as they come, but I wasn't able to find anything on google or altavista to support its notability, and there doesn't seem to be much material with which to expand it. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 05:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch supercentenarians[edit]

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

List of British supercentenarians

List of American supercentenarians

List of French supercentenarians

Examples of "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" which are specifically excluded by policy as Wikipedia is not a directory. None of the articles give any evidence that the linking of the age status and nationality status is in anyway notable. Guest9999 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: (EC) Reading through the pages though, they are almost completely unsourced anyways. I agree with the nom, a bit directory-like, maybe also an indiscriminate collection of information. BUT there is already an article full of people who achieved a long lifetime. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Indeed, this article is actually only a few days old. It was made by a disinterested admin over a compromise over deletion. The head person in charge of this article is actually banned from Wikipedia. However, the starting admin didn't suggest editing/improving the article as an alternate, so it may very well be it doesn't matter if work construction for this article is under way. Neal (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep There are 77 supercentenarians worldwide per Gerontology Research Group. They could be combined into a single article, or we could identify some other way to group them, but country seems as reasonable as any other alternative grouping. Alansohn (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, this article isn't exclusively about living supercentenarians. In other words, the Gerontology Research Group would have about a thousand dead supercentenarians worldwide. Neal (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable (supercentenarianism), and the list is clearly defined (older than 110, from the Netherlands), so I don't see how it's indiscriminate. A ecis^Brievenbus 10:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of living supercentenarians already exists and there are individual articles on all the notable people on the list. Are additional lists grouping these peopleby nationality really neccessary. There is no evidence of sources whihc show that the suybject of supercentenarians of any natioanlity is a notable one. All the articles can really be used for is including information on non-notability based on the idea that simply being very old and of a certain nationality makes someone notabile. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Reply Sorry, List of living supercentenarians are for living people, only. Neal (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per reasons provided above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can this subject of supercentenarians be notable if not many people know about them? The problem is, the subject of people over 110.0 isn't as notable as we would like them to be. Neal (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete all and split the articles mentioned. Brown Haired Girl created the articles because she though that they didn't establish their notability. They did. If this can become more than an indiscriminate collection of information with sources, then we can keep. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The problem is, not every individual is able to get their own article. Which is why the Jeanne Calment and such have a link to "main article." This is to give the oldest person in country a chance to get mentioned. In other words, some of these supercentenarians can have their own article that make up a sentence, so those individual articles will likely fail nobility. Neal (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why not just have a list of all supercentenarians with brief detals - nationality, age and date of birth (and death if applicable), linking out to full articles on notable individuals. It could be easily achieved simply by expanding List of living supercentenarians. Supercentenarians is clearly a notable topic, these cross categorisations are not. [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Reply I already see that 26 of the 105 living supercentenarians in list of living supercentenarians already link to their own article. Were you suggesting making more? The article already has date of birth, nationality, age, etc. Like I said, not all of them could pass AfD. Neal (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reply sorry a bit off topic there, my point was that notable SC's have their own articles and there already is a general list article for ease of navigation of these articles (if it is expanded to include the deceased). All that these articles seem to be is an attempt to lower the threshold of notability and verification by creating an unencyclopaedic cross catagorisation. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Reply Hmm, well list of living supercentenarians could not be expanded to list the deceased (without an article name change). And I would consider that article to be a list or directory, not the ones nominated for deletion. Neal (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would have agreed, however there does seem to be an emerging consensus - from various AfDs - that lists of members of notable groups can be acceptable articles. This is somewhat supported by Wikipedia is not a directory, which states: "This provision is not intended to encompass lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject.". See Lists of Jews for an example of directory type article that survived AfD. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Ah, so not every supercentenarian in this (4) AfDs have their own Wikipedia article, so it does pass the Wikipedia is not a list/directory policy (pass for deletion). Wonder if BrownHairedGirl (article starter) thought of that. Neal (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Neutral, as creator of these articles. I will restrict my comments to explaining why I created these lists, and let others decide their fate.

As NealIRC has already explained, I created these lists to merge some of the many articles on supercentenarians which do not meet WP:BIO, and as already noted many of them are dead, and as such are not included in the List of living supercentenarians. Some of the articles were unreferenced, some had only one reference to non-trivial coverage in a WP:RS reliable source, and others had references only to the name-and-dates entries on the lists at http://ww.grg.org or to the archives of a closed (signup only with moderator's approval) Yahoogroups mailing list run by Robert Young (who vets new members in case they are "spying").

I am not by inclination a deletionist, and have believed that merger was acceptable an as a compromise solution in cases such as this, but am happy to be corrected if that is not the case.

There is a difference between the notion that an individual supercentenarian is inherently notable and the presumption behind these list, that notability may be more easily demonstrated for the subject of very old people in a particular country than for each individual. These articles do contain some substantial references, and more are available; but whether they are reasonably capable of meeting the notability standards is something which I will leave to others to assess.

I have, as they say, no axe to grind here, and I can live happily with either a keep or delete outcome. However, I will watch the outcome of this AfD with great interest. If these lists are kept, I will continue to merge those articles which do not yet demonstrate notability; but if the lists are deleted, I will {{prod}} or {{afd}} any articles in Category:supercentenarians which do not meet notability criteria in WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments Suppose these 4 articles gets keep.

Then they will need working on. The articles will need to be properly cited and clean up. The only user left is Bart Versieck. Out of the 800+ members from the Gerontology Research Group (whom specialize and contribute to this field), we got only 3 full-time members here on Wikipedia, with 1 of them being the leader. The rest are all meat puppets. So the other 2 are me and Bart Versieck, whom we have worked under Robert Young. Robert is now banned so there's only the 2 of us left.

My solution is to notify him of the 4 articles and he'll take care of it (user Bart_Versieck), like he has for the oldest people article and the hundreds of individual supercentenarian biographies. I'm not going to take lead since I don't want to be full-time on Wikipedia. I'll be his side-kick under his assistance, and will watch for his typos and mistakes, and possibly help defend him on rare occasions if necessary, or temporarily take over if he goes on vacation or something.

Suppose these 4 articles get delete.

Then we won't have to worry about it. Neal (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I I read this right, Neal suggests that these articles can be cleaned up only with the involvement of Young, who is an indef-blocked editor who has a track-record of referencing articles to his own mailing lists. That sounds to me like a strong case for deletion. --13:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)

Well that's certainly the case if you think Bart_Versieck is RYoung122. Anyways, if I wanted RYoung122 to get involved in this article, that would be a poor excuse to want deletion. But I don't think that will be an issue since I don't think he will be unblocked anytime soon. Neal (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete and create articles for those individuals who attained the highest age from their nation or were the oldest person in the world at some time. Article that is merely a catalogue of objects is both illegible and useless. In my opinion, it is notable if someone was the oldest person in the world; however, it's not the case if someone was 2nd, 3rd or 26th oldest. Similarly, it is notable to be 100m run world record holder but nobody cares who once had 2nd, 3rd or 26th time. Koristka (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. That's not how notability is determined: see WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining how the current lists meet WP:NOTE? Why not just expand List of the oldest people, linking out to the articles of those who ae notable enough to warrent their own article and just listing base details for the rest (if such details are given by a reliable source). [[Guest9999 (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I'm not entirely sure that they do meet it at the moment, but they are stubs in need of expansion. My understanding has been that notability could demonstrated by evidence of the notability of the subject of "British supercentenarians", "Dutch supercentenarians", etc ... and that this could be established though references to the subject itself, or to people within that category who receive substantial media coverage on grounds of their age. (e.g. List of British supercentenarians has three substantial refs]]). In other words, that people who do not individually meet WP:BIO may do so collectively in a collective article.

The reason for creating these articles was as a halfway house between the two poles of one one hand only listing these people in List of the oldest people, and the other of having under-referenced stubs for individuals of dubious notability. List of the oldest people would be overwhelmed if was expanded to include indidividual life stories, and it seemed most appropriate to group these people by nationality.

As I have said before, my concern in all this was to haul back the proliferation of under-referenced stubs on people whose articles might never pass the WP:BIO notability threshold, and to do so with minimal loss of content. I have no desire either to boost or reduce coverage of very old people, just to ensure that what there is respects the notability guidelines.

However, I'm surprised that this AfD has attracted relatively few participants, because it is is really about a wider question of whether Mergism can continue to exist as a middle-way between Inclusionism and Deletionism. The question here — whether mergeing non-notable stubs can, if handled appropriately, create a notable list — is one with much wider implications. I know of several wikiprojects using precisely this technique to clean up collections of stub articles. Should they continue to do so? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I view mergism as a sensible form of inclusionism. I also think some deletionist arguments are valid, so depicting it as an either-or choice is not helpful. It depends on the specific cases. Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all This is the right approach; many entries are referenced already (in the lists or their articles) & referencing will no doubt proceed. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect humblefool ® 01:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undermine (Warcraft)[edit]

As is indicated already in the article itself, this article is about a location that is barely mentioned in Warcraft lore. Because of this, there are no references for it and it is doubtful there ever will be. Obviously no real-world notability. However, I have added information about Undermine to the Azeroth page as suggested by others. -- Atama sama 00:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No real world notability, and not really "fake world" notability either. ~~If this is important to the Warcraft gig, aren't there any articles it can be merged into?~~ - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear initially, but I already merged the relevant information into Azeroth (Warcraft), after cleaning up the grammar and spelling. -- Atama sama 00:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not read your complete statement. I was more focused on reading the article itself. Sorry about that! Good work. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's been merged, it just needs to be redirected. We can't delete it, we need the attribution information. I'll do that now. humblefool ® 01:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Lacking multiple independent third party coverage and I think a notable award would have garnered some coverage if nothing else. Also borderline G11. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrike[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert.Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom (good statement by the way). Notability guidelines are there for a reason. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The PC World coverage is decent and it won a competition, which are both non-trivial indicators of notability. There are also a bunch of posts about the subject on semi-reliable blog sources ([40][41][42][43][44][45] etc), which aren't sufficient to establish notability for the subject on their own, but the number of them plus the reliable coverage means it's probably good enough. (Oh yeah, note that I put the notability tag on the article originally. I do think it needs improvement but it isn't a lost cause.) Dreamyshade (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The award from LeWeb3 seems to satisfy criteria 2 of WP:WEB. LeWeb3 looks to be a fairly big deal in Europe, but a lot of the google hits aren't in English. I am only hesitant because, the two other winners of the award that year [46] lack articles themselves. Burzmali (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is nothing more than an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.31.49 (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 99.128.31.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per my nom. It realy is an ad.--Hu12 (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, it's snowing in here. east.718 at 02:14, November 24, 2007

BackupRight[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Advert Hu12 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:N. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)a[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like advertising to me. Andante1980 (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Definitely an advert. Nburden ^(T) 09:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:CSD G11, obvious spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Of the three references in the 'Press' section, the first two look like adverts, the third is not enough for notability. Snigbrook (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious spam; NN. Jmlk 1 7 01:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youlicit[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, launched May 2007, only references are self created (wordpress). Advert Hu12 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Does not appear to be notable, and there are no reliable third party sources. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relatively wide web coverage. However, there are many addons/toolbars, don't see why this one is any special. No coverage by any important website. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Unreferenced nonsense. (Actually jenovaism is the preferred spelling - but I still think it is non-notable.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenovism[edit]

Sounds like a hoax religion, don't think G1 covers it. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite the comment on the talk page for this discussion, it does not appear to be real, after a simple google search. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a WP:HOAX or something that someone made up. Doesn't really matter though as no evidence of notability du to lack of independent reliable sources. [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Delete, old (bad) joke. humblefool ® 01:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 01:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete CSD A7, no assertion of notability (but also CSD G1). --Angelo (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady to tiger[edit]

Original research, unreferenced, inaccurate and most likely as a result of watching 'the masked magician' on tv Kosmoshiva (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Don't think this worthy of an article. It isn't notable and there aren't even any sources. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability as no independent reliable sources are given. Article is likely 100% original reasearch and will probably not be verifyable. [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Change Article to Non-article. So, someone watched a trick on TV, named it Lady to tiger, and then goes on to tell us how he/she thinks the trick was pulled off? How was this not speedied? Keeper | 76 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per nom and Keeper. jj137 (Talk) 02:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a speedy candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly speedily. Pure junk. Alberon (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.. --Oxymoron⁸³ 04:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bollok wok[edit]

Orphaned article, don't see much notability here. Registered 251 Ghits. jj137 (Talk) 02:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Those G-Hits show that it is on sale, but not that it is notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was hoping this was a very specific cooking vessel, but alas no. RMHED (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy for A7. Looks like an undergroundn indie compilation album. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Snigbrook (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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