Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 6

< December 5	December 7 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Systematic review of the Requests for Adminship process Broad RFC on the nature and purpose of notability and the GNG Discussion on the current notability guidelines Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

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

The result was Speedily Deleted by Zsinj under G4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures. Vary | Talk 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of commercial failures in the automotive industry

This article, like its predecessor List of automobiles that were commercial failures, suffers from dealing with a completely undefined concept. There are no definitions of what constitutes a failure and the article will inherently be prone to speculation and POV conflicts. Unfortunately there is no way to deal with this concept in a manner appropriate for Wikipedia. For the deletion of the preceeding article see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures-The rational for deleting this article is the same as that of its predecessor. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 05:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

deleteThis is largely identical to the prior list and suffers from the same problem, mainly that it is inherently NOT-NPOV, which means that the list can NEVER be NPOV, and so it must go. This isn't merely a clean-up issue, it is subjective as to what can be considered a "failure" and thus, will never be neutral. The article is also nearly entirely unreferenced, and thus fails WP:V. --Jayron 32 06:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Vague listcruft. --Brianyoumans 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Arbitary listcruft. MER-C 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The issue with this sort of article is that it can (and seems to have) turn into a spree of original research and weasel words. There are articles like it that that have been kept (eg. Films considered the worst ever), but they restrict themselves to only those cases that have reliable sources. If reliable sources can be found for a few cases, and if the article is scaled back to only those cases (and entries added only as reliable sources are found), then weak keep. --Interiot 07:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good point-I agree. As is, the article, does however, face severe OR and POV issues. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 08:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete and salt; it qualifies under CSD G4 ("Recreation of deleted material"). Fails to even mention how they were commercial failures (i.e. how much money they lost), never mind provide sources, which would be practically impossible since such info is not made public by manufacturers. --DeLarge 09:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good call, I didn't notice that. It has a few changes from the original version, but it is substantially a repost of the version discussed in the AfD. It has one extra source, [1] for what it's worth, but it looks like a G4 to me. Tagging it with {{db}}. --Interiot 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a repost of previously AFDed content. It can go through deletion review once proper sources have been established per Interiot. -Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Qualifies under CSD G4, as a re-posting of deleted material, albeit under a new title. The previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures) was deleted as a result. There are also POV problems, and it's ostensibly original research. If someone has reliable sources for this, then take it to deletion review, but due to lack of references, and the fact it's a re-posting of deleted material, it has to go. --SunStar Net^talk 11:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Waste of time. Who is to say what is a commercial failure and what isn't? ren0^talk 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, original speedy-er retracts, but tagging for expansion. Opabinia regalis 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Gomolvilas

The article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7 (non-notability), but the notability is asserted, so A7 doesn't apply. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep The article needs to be cleaned up, nevertheless the topic indiviudal seems to be suffiently notable. TSO1D 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless reliable sources provided. Article claims lots of things, but that's meaningless unless such claims are sourced. For example, there's a claim about writing screenplays for Paramount, but there doesn't seem to be an IMDB entry under Prince Gomolvilas. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- No IMDb entry because he's a playwright, not a filmmaker. Caknuck 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct that a lack of sources is cause to put a tag on the article and then find some sources, rather than to just delete the article? --Dmz5 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Usually that is the case, but most articles sent to AfD have other concerns besides verifiability. Caknuck 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep A cursory Google search indicates that he has achieved local notoriety. A San Francisco Chronicle article featured the subject this summer. Caknuck 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete The whole thing is pure of vanity. It makes alot of claims but it has nothing to back it up.--M8v2 03:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - WP:BIO needs two coverages. Also, it's a resume. Unless someone can clean this up, it cries out for deletion. MER-C 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Besides that San Francisco Chronicle article on him Caknuck found, a couple of independent write-ups of his work too. [2][3] --Oakshade 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep A Google search pulls up a bunch of articles in various papers in addition to the ones above. [4][5][6] [7][8]--Prestonkgamble 11:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep WP:CITE per Dmz5, notoriety per Caknuck, Oakshade and Prestonkgamble. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Subject of multiple articles, and with recent tweaks is now sourced. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Not notable to me, but (now sourced) clearly is to some people. DavyJonesLocker 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
keep please he is notable for bio guidelines we are not built on paper Yuckfoo 00:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. Sharkface217 04:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I was the person who originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, because the article in its original form did not demonstrate the subject's notability. The improvements to the article since then are sufficient to convince me that the subject merits an article on Wikipedia. As things stand, the article is brief enough to warrant marking as a stub, but should not be deleted IMO. --stephenw32768^<talk> 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable, but certainly needs work. StayinAnon 07:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. However, it seems clear to me that this should be a redirect to GM Grimm, and I have boldly made it one. Note that this was my own action and not part of closing this AFD. Chick Bowen 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gravediggaz (other rap group)

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC requirements for notability. This group never released any albums or made any news, and both members of the group (GM Grimm and Roc Raida) have their own articles to discuss their later works outside of the group. Additionally, there is a different notable group at Gravediggaz. Brad T. Cordeiro 00:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. If this was a short-lived point in their respective careers, it needs to show some notability other than that it was some brief confluence of hip-hoppers. --Dennisthe2 01:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. But be sure that this information (and that it's not that other Gravediggaz, man that's confusing) is mentioned in both rappers' respective articles. Antepenultimate 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:MUSIC point 6. A band is notable if it had a member that is otherwise notable. Seeing as both members have their own article undisputed by the nominee, their notability appears to be a given. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:MUSIC point 6 says "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." This is an early band that never actually did anything, so a redirect would be appropriate, except for the fact that no one looking for information on GM Grimm or Roc Raida (whose page was copyvio) would search for "Gravediggaz (other rap group)". Brad T. Cordeiro 20:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Strong Keep~~ per MacGyverMagic. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per MacGyver. -Toptomcat 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The cited point from WP:MUSIC also states that it is 'often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such,' and since this group never even released a recording, I think that applies here. As there are no incoming links and the article is at such an odd location, I don't personally see any need for a redirect, either, although I wouldn't dispute if one were created. A brief mention in the articles on the band's notable members should be plenty. -- Vary | Talk 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- A band can be notable even without recordings. Gravediggaz has had notable member(s) and satisfies notability guidelines. Are there any sources? --ElectricEye (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Gravediggaz are not only notable because of its members, they released several albums and were covered in major publications.[9] Gravediggaz (other rap group) never had any albums or any coverage in any publication. I actually can't find any verification that they ever really existed. Brad T. Cordeiro 18:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it has notable members, but no notability on its own, which is why WP:MUSIC seems to recommend redirecting in a situation like this one. That would make sense were it not for the improbability of anyone ever typing 'Gravediggaz (other rap group)' into the search box. And no, there don't appear to be any sources at the moment. -- Vary | Talk 04:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep per Mgm and Vary. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Alright, I'm somewhat new here, so maybe I can claim ignorance when I say: How do you reference Vary's entry as reasoning for your keep? Seems in favor of a delete! And then you have a "Strong Keep" with a strikethrough! Instead of creating a "perCrockPot abomination" of "keeps" and "deletes," just say whatever it is you want to say! I'm so confused! Antepenultimate 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep As per MacGyver. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Vary. In my mind, Vary's thinking is impeccable. This is not a notable enough act for an article, despite technically passing WP:MUSIC, since they never actually did anything, and a redirect would be pointless since nobody would ever do a search using this phraseology. -- Kicking222 22:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment True, and well put: I'd likely argue inclusion except that keeping this article would do little except encourage confusion. Not worth it for one sentence of information! Antepenultimate 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per MacGyver. Sharkface217 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The article fails to assert notability and the group has never released any recorded material. Just because someone of questionable notability had something to do with it does not mean it is notable enough to warrant its own article, if that were the case then wikipedia would be knee deep in crap. NeoFreak 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I named my rock bad Led Zeppelin, can I have an article too? Danny Lilithborne 22:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Did your band have notable members? ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep on the grounds that they have a notable member. This is because of Wikipedia's policy on music, see guideline No.6. The reasoning is based on a technicality. --SunStar Net^talk 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:MUSIC: "It is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such". —ShadowHalo 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Yanksox 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Life In) The Public Eye

The record company of Raven-Symoné, Hollywood Records, has not confirmed that this will be the next single on Raven's yet to be released album, nor have they confirmed that the song in question even exists. No track listing has been announced, and it is quite apparent that this page was created by someone with very limited knowledge in the subject area, most notably by the fact that they didn't even spell Raven-Symoné's name correctly. This article should be deleted because it is completely unsourced and lacks any supporting information. Rhythmnation2004 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that an unregistered user, whose IP is 141.149.208.218, removed the deletion notice without giving any explanation. Rhythmnation2004 14:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete crystalballcruft. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: crystalbollocks Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cnriaczoy42 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: per above.Bearly541 23:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: unverifiable Drunken Pirate 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and all the other coming songs from her album. While we're at it, you might like to check out Category:Upcoming singles. I'm not sure just about any single is worthy of its own article (except for maybe Stairway to Heaven, Another Brick in the Wall, Thriller, etc.) - see WP:DUMB on this one. Patstuart^talk|edits 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Crystal ball. NeoJustin 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom --61.114.193.19 14:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 08:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Betancourt

Contested prod. Fails WP:PORNBIO Otto4711 19:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Playboy model. Men (and perhaps some women) all over the world likely have slobbered over her. --Oakshade 07:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but does not appear to pass WP:PORN BIO. Delete Ohconfucius 09:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, as she's not a "pornographic actor," I don't think we apply WP:PORN BIO to this. Secondly, if she doesn't follow strictly WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO guidelines, then I'll cite the WP:BIO clause "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." In this case, it's warrented. --Oakshade 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll see your cite of the WP:BIO clause and I'll raise you Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a database of all persons. She took off her clothes a few times. Just because she happened to take them off for Playboy doesn't make an article about her warranted. Come up with a better reason than "Men all over the world likely have slobbered over her" for inclusion. Otto4711 21:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I like that argument, actually. An as for your WP:NOTE argument, not "all persons" have posed in one of the most popular magazines in history. --Oakshade 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had men slobber over me. Should I get a Wikipedia article for it? Otto4711 05:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Was it a result of you posing in Playboy? --Oakshade 10:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it was for helping to establish the precedent that posing in Playboy does not in and of itself establish notability. [10] Otto4711 15:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:PORN BIO is clearly meant to cover playboy models, as it's specifically stated (criterion 2) that "Performer has been a Playboy Playmate or a Penthouse Pet, or similar titles in other major magazines.", and as it stands, she fails. Please feel free to offer sources if you feel one of the other criteria may apply to her. Ohconfucius 01:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! It's criteria for porno ACTORS having modeled in Playboy, not for models. Read the title of WP:PORN BIO carefully: "Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)". --Oakshade 01:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether or not she's a "pornographic actor," it matters whether she's notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article.

We know that and that's what we've been discussing outside of the semantics of "actor" vs. "model". --Oakshade 01:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Tulkolahten 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:PORN BIO, and WP:NOTE. TJ Spyke 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Some claim to notability for models (nude or non-nude) besides "appearing in two or three spreads in a popular magazine" needs to be made. I don't see that here. Caknuck 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete due to insufficient evidence that she satisfies WP:BIO yet. --Metropolitan90 04:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, appeared as one of many, rather than with any particular prominence. We can't write any more about her than would constitute a basic entry in a list. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep all. Sandstein 19:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional note by the closing admin: If you read this message coming from one of the articles listed below, please remove the deletion messagebox at the beginning of the article, and optionally leave an {{oldafdfull}} message on the talk page. Thank you. (It's just too much clickwork for one person...) Sandstein 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Finnish films

Lists by someone who has mistaken Wikipedia for IMDB Lite. A series of text dumps taken from IMDB (copyvio) used to create a series of lists (better in categories) for indiscriminate information (WP:NOT#DIR), so the creator can ultimately create several thousand stubs on utterly non-notable films. (Addendum: It occurs to me that since the text dumps seem to come directly from IMDB, there's the whole reliable source issue, since, really, IMDB isn't one.) Included are the following text dumps and future text dumps:

List of Finnish films
- List of Finnish films: A
- List of Finnish films: B
- List of Finnish films: C
- List of Finnish films: D
List of Asian films
List of Central American films
List of Albanian films
List of Argentine films
List of Cuban films
List of Dutch films
List of East German films
List of Filipino films
List of German films
List of Iranian films
List of Irish films
List of Nigerian films
List of Norwegian films
List of Portuguese films
List of Romanian films
List of Soviet films
List of Swiss films
List of Taiwanese films
List of Turkish films
List of Venezuelan films
List of Yugoslavian films

And probably the rest of the United Nations. I gave up looking for them all. Calton | Talk 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

KEEP per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people by name.--9ers 01:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — 9ers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Which applies how, exactly? Nothing I can see deals with my objections (text dump, copyvio, better in categories, WP:NOT#DIR, ultimately to be used in creating thousands of stubs about non-notable films). --Calton | Talk 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete per nom. All of the list are unmanageable/will go on forever.--M8v2 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Facts are not copyrightable any more than the phone book is. Categories and lists are both useful navigation guides. So long as the article space gets filled. I would prefer if the creator filled each page as they are created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia articles shouldn't be one line articles that would be similar to information found in a telephone book. But all lists are inherently directories, thats the reason they exist, as a form of navigation similar to categories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

IMDB compiled the list in its present form, but even assuming you're correct about that issue, I notice you didn't address the actual usefulness of categories, the text dump issue, or why this doesn't violate WP:NOT#DIR. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Let's stop this now before we get overrun with stubs for movies in every imaginable language, many of which are probably completely unnotable. These lists may be useful at some point, but let's fill them with lists of notable films, not a wholesale listing of every newsreel and training film ever made. --Brianyoumans 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. MER-C 05:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete all as per copyvio (facts are not copyrightable, but TEXT IS. A text dump is a copyvio always) and more importantly, as an UNMAINTAINABLE list. These lists clearly cover way too broad of a grouping. The list of every X ever made, where X is a broad category without any qualifications to make the entries notable. The fact that no discriminating quality is used seperate the films on this lists make them lists of indiscriminate information, which violates WP:NOT. --Jayron 32 06:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

- Note: Alternative solution to this problem proposed below. Remove them from the mainspace, and move to the relevent WikiProject namespace where they can be used to create GOOD lists that DO meet minimum requirements of notability and verifiability and maintainability. --Jayron 32 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. (1) Some people find information easier to process in list form, others in categories. An encyclopedia is all about access - how to find the information you want, and these lists enable list-readers to find their information. (2) I don't know what a "text dump" is, but the lists in question are simply titles which link to the articles for the films. I don't see how listing that information is a copyvio. (3) Does this mean all the other lists by country or nationality are next? (4) I have yet to hear anyone suggest an alternative to IMDb, which (so far) I have found useful and acceptably reliable. Her Pegship 06:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- reply the problem is that lists are articles and thus subject to the rules of all articles, such as notability and WP:verifiability and Reliable sources and most importantly various aspects of WP:NOT such as not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a directory. Year made and Country or Origin are not discriminating factors about a subject, and thus should not be the sole basis for the creation of a list. List of Top-100 Grossing Finnish Films or List of Award Winning Finnish Films, if appropriately referened, WOULD make good list articles, as they contain descriminating qualities. Broad categorizations like these are better managed through CATAGORIES and not LISTS, since categories CAN be this general. As always, utility of the information is NOT really a keepable criteria. The fact that some users don't know how to use categories is no reason to keep these lists. --Jayron 32 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but redirect to categories. --User:Yacht (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, under the condition that the editor doesn't start further articles before they have a substantial amount of information filled in. Hoverfish 07:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Addition: I agree with Wisekwai (see below) in that film is a global issue and quality and notability too. Our lists should grow to include all notable films. Hoverfish 07:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (see below)
Strong keep. I maintain one of the lists and believe it is useful in tracking if articles have been written about certain notable films for the country where my interests lie. I've put a lot of work into it. It wasn't just a text dump. I view the lists as helpful resources. A film would show up in the category section only if it's been written about already. A list is more inclusive. It even lists films that are not yet on IMDb. To me, it is encyclopedic. I would expect notable films from all the countries to be covered. And what I'm getting a whiff of in the above debate is that "foreign" films aren't notable, which, frankly, is disturbing to me. — WiseKwai 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Full disclosure: The list I maintain is List of Thai films, which hasn't yet been flagged for deletion by User:Calton, and I'm hoping that it won't until this debate plays out. — WiseKwai 08:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. If these were categories, that would be fine. tgies 08:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, so long as the links within the article only point to notable foreign films (leaving the rest to plain text). It is beneficial for Wikipedia to have lists of films for other countries outside of the U.S./U.K. who have made significant contributions to the film world. I must also agree with Wisekwai's reasoning, as long as there is upkeep with the lists, there should be no reason for removing them. These films will start out as stubs, but if properly maintained and supported, could be an important and notable contribution to the film section of Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all I'm a strong supporter of all film WikiProjects here, but I can't in good conscience support keeping these lists. This is clearly something which categorization was designed for rather than lists. To me, a list needs to both be clearly manageable and limited, and needs to provide information in a way that categorization cannot do. Our best lists clearly do this. Few (if any) of these pages offer much that could not be better (and more efficiently) served by means of categories. Sorry, but these articles pretty much are textbook examples of WP:CSL. Girolamo Savonarola 09:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all the articles that are direct copies from IMDB or starting stubs for alphabetic indexes. The list of Thai films cited above is sorted by decade instead of alphabetically, so it clear does something categories can't do. The nominated lists, however, are (1) copied from another source, (2) don't help in tracking articles as we don't have articles for a lot the listed films and (3) alphebetized lists without any annotations which is exactly the field categories are made for. These lists have no encyclopedic value. (side note, most of these index pages should be deleted anyway for being empty lists- Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep They "seem" to come from the IMDb, meaning this mass deletion is based on a broad generalization. Copyright violation is a heavy charge and should be dealt with specifically in a case by case basis and not brandied about in a McCathian manner. The only way categories could rival a list of all the notable films from any given country would be the creation of thousands of stubs which is not in keeping with policy. Lists don't mean more stubs, rather categories necessitate stubs en masse. The charge that the lists "go on forever" is ridiculous, everything goes on indefinitely. We should cut off the list of American presidents after 2008 maybe? What say we chop eras, mammals and stars too? Way too many of all of those already. To my mind WP:CSL supports these lists. Again, it would be impossible to do this in category form. The films can be added to the lists without creating stubs. The lists nominated here are all new and with proper maintenance will certainly be a valuable resource. Country is arguably more important than year seeing as it provides an overview of that culture. Obviously it's a huge project, as is Wikipedia itself, and it needs some time. If you can cite specific copyright violations by all means lose those but let's not be hamfisted about this. Doctor Sunshine 12:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

They "seem" to come from the IMDb, meaning this mass deletion is based on a broad generalization. Reality check: it's based on comparing the IMDB with the text dumps on Wikipedia. Example: List of Finnish films: A is, item for item, order for order, word for word, identical to the [IMDB page -- except the Wikipedia page is missing "Action Vacation in Finland (1999) (V)". Not a Finnish film to be proud of, I guess. So you can retract the overheated language and massive assumptions of bad faith any time now. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And you choose to nominate 26 articles for deletion? The objectionable material could easily be removed from the offending pages. The issues' already been addressed with the author. And, as I've said, most of the pages you've listed are empty. How do you account for their inclusion here? Doctor Sunshine 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete the Finnish lists and List of Asian films. Neutral on everything else as they are either stubs or have content unrelated to IMDB. Copyvio is not something that that can be consensused away. Facts are not copyrightable and I suppose it could be argued that these lists are just facts, but when you use someone else's exact list right down to the way they formatted it with (year) and (TV) or (V), that's a little much. BigDT 13:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Leave IMDB in IMDB, and have articles only on films which have achieved notability via sales, reviews, and other multiple independent coverage. Edison 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

- Comment See List_of_films_by_country_of_production for the full list. See also the list of Finnish films - A for his progress in populating the stubs. And of course IMDB and Wikipedia have different policies about the naming of foreign language films. -- Beardo 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Per WiseKwai. Lists in article space can be useful for find unwritten articles to fill in, and for general information, which a category can't provide. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it's an utterly indiscriminate list (well, except for discriminating against Action Vacation in Finland), it's pretty useless for finding unwritten articles worth actually writing. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative solution I have carried on some conversation with the editor responsible for these lists. They obviously took some work, and their objective is noble, even if the execution is misguided. I propose another solution, and that is to move ALL of these lists from the Mainspace to the WikiProject Namespace. It would allow the work to continue within the scope of the project that created them, where they DO serve a purpose, and where they wouldn't clutter up the mainspace with indiscriminate info. Also, they could be recreated or moved back to the mainspace if a clear method of discrimination was used, such as List of Top 25 Grossing Finnish Films by Year or some such change that assured that this lists were finite and managable and verifiable and notable by their very title. Any ideas? --Jayron 32 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I align 100% with this alternative solution and please, lets create clear guidelines on such things so that no more energy and enthusiasm get wasted. Hoverfish 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC) - I also find Beardo's comment worth serious consideration. Hoverfish 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete /Alt. solution The alternative solution above is acceptable, as long as those lists get off of Wikipedia. The sheer volume of these lists makes them unmanageable, and really makes Wikipedia become a database. Lists have to be of manageable size to be considered for an encyclopedia. There is also a serious issue of reliability for a database that broad. Djcastel 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep / Alt. solution I also find the alternative solution acceptable, but I don't think that these lists should be deleted out of hand since they do serve as a convenient navigation guide. Also, agree with Doctor Sunshine that we should not be waving around copyright infringement on a list of movies, that's silly. Vikingviolinist 19:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Additional comment It should be noted that almost all of the pages listed here are still empty—as they were only created yesterday—and do not violate anything. And the lists are going to end up looking mighty similar to the IMDb as that's the standard method of listing films, Title (Year) (Additional information), and is not exclusive to the IMDb. Personally, I like Year: English title (Original language title Romanization if necessary) but that's just me. I don't see why they should be moved to a different name space or why this project is in anymore of a rush to be certified than any other articles on this site. They need to be seen so that as many film buffs as possible can find and enhance them. Wikipedia has a lot more room than any corporeal dictionary and these (big) lists most definitely contribute to a comprehensive knowledge of world cinema. Doctor Sunshine 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- In addition to my addition I would urge everyone interested in the Namespace move to consider keeping this article as it can be moved, if necessary, at a later time but it can't be moved if it's deleted which is what's in the balance at the moment. Doctor Sunshine 20:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? If anyone wants it the information, they can just go back to IMDB and copy it again. Cut and paste, cut and paste. --Calton | Talk 08:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete all I strongly believe that this would be viewed better and easier to keep up with/navigate in a category. I had notified the creator of these pages (Blofeld) when he started creawting them that they probably weren't a good idea and he should talk about it further at WT:FILMS, but he continued to do it (not that that in itself is bad, we love it when people are bold). Further litigations can be found at User talk:Cbrown1023#Note to the editor, User talk:Hoverfish#Lists of films, and User_talk:Ernst Stavro Blofeld#About the new lists of films (and below). Cbrown1023 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep from the many above points made. Sharkface217 05:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete from the many above points made and per Jayron ;-) Ohconfucius 08:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - lists of movies by country fall within Wikipedia's encyclopedic scope, and they deserve to be kept. Any text that is copyvio should be removed, but the lists themselves should remain. Also, by being in list form, these lists present the opportunity to add various enhancements later, such as annotations (brief description, directors' names, year of release, etc.). The Transhumanist 09:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

v • d • e

Films by country

Africa

Algeria · Angola · Benin · Botswana · Burkina Faso · Burundi · Cameroon · Cape Verde · Central African Republic · Chad · Congo · Egypt · Ethiopia · Gabon · Guinea · Guinea-Bissau · Kenya · Ivory Coast · Libya · Madagascar · Mali · Mauritania · Mauritius · Mozambique · Niger · Morocco · Nigeria · Rwanda · Senegal · Somalia · South Africa · Tanzania · Togo · Tunisia · Uganda · Zaire · Zambia · Zimbabwe

Asia

Afghanistan · Armenia · Bahrain · Bangladesh · Bhutan · Burma · Cambodia · China (Hong Kong · Macau) · India (Assamese · Bengali · Bollywood/Hindi · Kannada · Kollywood/Tamil · Malayalam · Tollywood/Telugu) · Indonesia · Iran · Iraq · Israel · Japan · Jordan · Kazakhstan · Korea (North Korea · South Korea) · Kuwait · Kyrgyzstan · Laos · Lebanon · Malaysia · Mongolia · Nepal · Pakistan · Palestine · Philippines · Qatar · Saudi Arabia · Singapore · Sri Lanka · Syria · Taiwan · Tajikistan · Thailand · Turkmenistan · U.A.E. · Uzbekistan · Vietnam · Yemen

Europe

Albania · Andorra · Austria · Azerbaijan · Belarus · Belgium · Bosnia-Herzegovina · Bulgaria · Croatia · Cyprus · Czech Republic · Czechoslovakia · Denmark · Estonia · Faroe Islands · Finland · France · Georgia · Germany · East Germany · Greece · Greenland · Hungary · Iceland · Ireland · Italy · Latvia · Liechtenstein · Lithuania · Luxembourg · Macedonia · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Montenegro · Netherlands · Norway · Poland · Portugal · Romania · Russia · Serbia · Slovakia · Slovenia · Soviet Union · Spain · Sweden · Switzerland · Turkey · Ukraine · United Kingdom · Yugoslavia

Americas

Caribbean	Antigua and Barbuda · Aruba · Bahamas · Barbados · Cuba · Dominican Republic · Guadeloupe · Guyana · Haiti · Jamaica · Martinique · Puerto Rico · Trinidad and Tobago

Latin American films	Argentina · Bolivia · Brazil · Chile · Colombia · Costa Rica · Ecuador · Guatemala · Honduras · Mexico · Nicaragua · Panama · Paraguay · Peru · Suriname · Uruguay · Venezuela

North America	Canada · U.S.A

Oceania

Australia · Fiji · New Zealand · Niue · Papua New Guinea · Tonga

Strong keep can't anyone see how useful this navigation box is in learning about global film. Obviously for list of American films there will be a redirect to Category@American films. Not every film will be listed. Mostly notable ones which will eventually become articles in the future. The lists will just act ad navigation points to diferent articles on world film. What is the problem with this. Also the lists ar enot endless and can be managed. Look I just want to get on with it rather than waiting and debating Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey I have an excellent idea. Why not just keep the navigation box never delete this it is brilliant but for the countries that have a great number of films and that already have agreat number of articles on wikipedia redirect to category. E.g List of American films there is no point in creating a new list when catwegory has listed most of them automativally anyway. I suggest placing the navigatin box in the categories of country films. However for the countries that as yet do not have entries aor many films yet on wikipedia I suggest kepping these lists. Then once the films develop and a fuller list is created then redirect to categories. Look beleive it or not I would rather not have to create lists unneccesaarily I have redircted both American and British films but i really do think the serve as a start for foreign films which are not on wikipedia. Even for Finnish films once the articles develop and becomes fuller then delete the lists and redirect to categories. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

However most countries as yet do not have the majority of notable films covered so I suggest the lists are drawn up for most of them and once they develop redirect to categories and remove the unotable films and then delete the lists. American films and British films I have already redirected to category and maybe french film. I will also be drawing uo naviagation boxes of Film by genre and List of actors and List of Film Directors by country and on that I will be redirecting to the categories. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the lists of films by year I suggest that from 1940 to present a redirect is made to categories but the lists again identify what is misssing by year. All of the nominated deletion articles so far are barely covered in the categoriesErnst Stavro Blofeld 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but only if the lists are pruned according to notability, not kept as a text dump from IMDb. Once the pruning has been done, most lists could probably fit on one page. Lists like these, with plenty of red links, are useful for promoting the creation of new articles. Alternative solution: Move to Missing encyclopedic articles, the current List of notable films is not very extensive. Lampman 13:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Useful for cross-referencing. --Zleitzen 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep but adjust format

Pleas see my comments on the main Wikiproject film talk page. I propose that rather than creat A-z lists of films by country and date that they are changed into chronological order in order of date and year of release. List of films by year would be listed from January 1st to december 31st in order of release and List of films by country in order of date of release which List of thai films and others have very usefully done. Eventually you would have an extrmeely useful timeline of films in chronoligal order by year and country. However a start I think they need to be listed alphatically, unotable films removed and then sorted by order of release. I have no objections if everybody would like the bulk of the listing to be done behind the main space. Definately do not delete them yet I know thety have a potentially very encylopedic purpose. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How about the list of films that are notable are drawn up first on pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of missing Bulgarian Films and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of missing Finnish Films and then only the notable ones created. Then at a later date the List of films can be sorted by year and date of release Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I'd prefer the films just be categorized, but if the lists were to be handled properly, such as in a WikiProjet, then I don't have a major problem with this. Looks like a different issue though. --Wizardman 03:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Ógra Fianna Fáil and redirect. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Barry Cumann (AfD subpage)

non notable student branch in Irish college, previous precedents set with deletions of articles on college branches of student organisations, suggest merging with Ógra Fianna Fáil Stephenh2312 13:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom with no merge needed. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I would advise against using notability issues as criterion for deletion, it's too disputed. 70.101.146.27 09:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, doesn't appear to be notable, and the long list of presidents feels like a COI. A redirect to Ogra Fianna Fail would be useful. (Radiant) 10:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[Comments by Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC) formerly placed here have been removed as they pertained to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Finnish films instead. --Metropolitan90 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)]

Something gone wrong here? Do these comments belong here or in the AfD just above this one, the one on List of Finnish films? -- 131.111.8.97 02:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't see the List of Finnish films AfD on the same page of the AfD log because this entry appears in the log for both December 3 and December 6. Seeing Blofeld's comments placed in this subpage, with no entry for List of Finnish films nearby, I thought he was commenting on this particular article. I will notify him on his user talk page of what happened. --Metropolitan90 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep for the moment, extreme bad faith nomination by Stephenh2312 who seems to be a member of UCD's Young Fine Gael branch from his contributions. (Fine Gael are the main opposition party to Fianna Fail in Ireland.) The KBC article seems to be of good quality and has a relatively long edit list. I went to UCD myself KBC is certainly notable within the context of UCD societies. If there is a Wikipedia policy in place regarding college societies it should be linked and we should make our minds up based on that. Note: I have NEVER voted Fianna Fail in my life so I am not partisan in this, but this is a plain abuse of the AfD procedure. -- Blorg 12:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The most relevant proposed guideline here is WP:ORG. Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator; various other political party organizations at other universities have been deleted through AfD. --Metropolitan90 15:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Blorg. I think it's worth noting that I'm utterly uninvolved in Irish politics. -Toptomcat 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as normal, not notable, See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent State University College Republicans, which resulted in a delete, for comparison. — Xroot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Re: Blorgs comment: I'm apolitical. I have friends in Young Fine Gael and I'm familiar with the organisation and I occasionally edit articles on subects relating to them. I'm only going on previous precedents set and users should note I'm suggesting MERGING the article with Ógra Fianna Fáil which currently is a stub. -stephenh2312 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I would not object to a merge and redirect into Ógra Fianna Fáil, was just concerned by your nomination, apparently after UCD YFG was deleted. Basically all the articles you have edited are to do with Fine Gael, and you have uploaded UCD YFG logos. So you must excuse me if I suspected partisan deletionism! -- Blorg 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
- Comment. Also as you are apolitical I presume you will be listing YFG Letterkenny on AfD which I see you have edited? (for non-Irish readers, Letterkenny is a Donegal town around 1/100th the size of Dublin. -- Blorg 11:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Re: Blorgs's Comment. Because of Blorgs comments I think I'll have to give some background. I'm from a Fianna Fáil voting family. I am friendly with a lot of people in YFG. I'm not sure who I would vote for in a general election, but I'm leaning twords the Green Party. Anyway I noticed in the University College Dublin article that the Kevin Barry Cumann had an article on wikipedia and out of boredom I wrote an article on UCD YFG. The information on this was got from their website. It is the only article I've ever written and in the process I edited one or two others making links to the UCD YFG article. The UCD YFG article was later deleted apparently due to non-notablity and previous precedent. I personally think Wikipedia should change their policy on this but it's up to them. I think this article should be deleted and the relevant bits merged with Ógra Fianna Fáil in a new section say, 'notable branches of'. I understand this would create a precedent of its own and while it would work in Ireland it would lead to an overload of information on articles like Young Democrats in the US or any other party. It's up to Wikipedia. Blorg is accusing me of being partisan but you could look at the other side of the coin and accuse Wikipedia of having double standards. In any case I suggest a MERGE of the more relevant bits of the article -stephenh2312 17:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Blorg. Sharkface217 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per plenty of precedent. There really is nowt too special about KBC, just like the vast majority of student societies. Ohconfucius 08:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep until the information can be merged into Ógra Fianna Fáil, then redirect. JamesMLane t c 11:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Ógra Fianna Fáil. There are few reliable secondary sources at the moment, maybe someone with more familiarity could add some? Inner Earth 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge FirefoxMan 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per original nom. WMMartin 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. It was borderline between a merge or a delete, but I am uncomfortable merging something that is completely unreferenced; ergo, delete. Proto::► 11:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Shops at Biddeford Crossing

Keep. Relatively notable development for an area which has not seen something of this magnitude, ever. This deletion request was started by someone out of spite for "strip malls" and his subjective opinion should have no bearing on the existence of this wiki entry.

Southcoast 18:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Non-notable place of local interest. Almost an ad. -Nv8200p talk 20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Biddeford, Maine Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Canadian Bacon. Yankee Rajput 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NOTE. Tulkolahten 17:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom or Merge per WP:LOCAL. No preference, but I'm not volunteering to do the merge either. :) Xtifr _tälk 02:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 18:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge as above per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 00:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge it already and stop relisting, the content can be removed later. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Community consensus is not reached yet ! Tulkolahten 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn. meshach 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. This is a strip mall rather than an enclosed shopping center, and doesn't even have its own web site. Do not relist this again as part of this same AfD; regardless of the outcome, enough people have commented by now. --Metropolitan90 04:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable because of the loss of wetlands in construction (see also the developer's preservation and restoral of other wetlands), and also because it is largest-ever commercial development in York County, Maine's southernmost county. It added a reference about the wetlands. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete No verified claim of notability. Shimeru 10:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge, dammit! -Toptomcat 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to article on the local geographic/municipal area. At 500,000 sq ft it is only half the size of a typical regional mall and not otherwise architecturally or historically notable. Edison 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete the article and tear down the strip-mall, too. Frater Xyzzy 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. Only source is about wetlands being filled in to make it..... not promising. Shopcruft? Inner Earth 16:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Largest commerical development in Southern Maine with room for growth. Notable for bringing hundreds of jobs to the area and contributing to the local economy. 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.13.44.180 (talk • contribs)
Merge into Biddeford, Maine. Appears to have great significance to the local economy, and appears to be locally controversial. --orlady 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
KEEP Just needs more info, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:CORP, the relevant notability guideline. After 14 days on AFD, if there were sources, we'd have them. Southern Maine is more than just York County, Maine, it also includes at least Cumberland County, Maine (and under some definitions other counties as well), so the largest mall is ~~probably~~ the Maine Mall in South Portland, Maine. (The article on it was deleted under CSD G11.) Article makes the claim that "The strip center is noteworthy for being the site of the first PetSmart in Maine." That is not encyclopedic notability. If we kept the first location of every chain (store, hotel, etc...) in every state we wouldn't be an encyclopedia, we'd be a business directory, contravening the WP:NOT policy. GRBerry 03:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (The source page finished loading; the Maine Mall is 1.2 Million square feet, so more than twice as large. This is definitely not the largest mall in Southern Maine. http://www.ggp.com/content/live/aerialfacts/The%20Maine%20Mall_aerialfact.pdf GRBerry 03:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge. Looks almost notable enough for its own article, but it does fail notability. Maybe make a section on it in the Biddeford article? --Wizardman 03:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No non-trivial coverage of subject by multiple, reliable published sources. -- Satori Son 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Orlady. Montco 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turbo island

I appreciate that the article's creator has attempted to demonstrate that this site meets some of the guidelines at WP:WEB. However, I simply don't see how a forum created 4 months ago can have enough "internet presence" to justify an article here. Joyous! | Talk 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, urban 75 doesn't count enough for an article based solely on it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete fails WP:WEB, forum is not even on its own domain (http://www.turboisland.proboards106.com).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per Persian--M8v2 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. TSO1D 03:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was CSD G11 - crz crztalk 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galyna Kyyashko

Article is self-written and self-promoting and lists no sources whatsover. Kyyashko also doesn't seem especially succesful or important. V. Joe 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, The creator of the article removed the Afd (and Speedy) template, which was absent the entirety of the discussion. Agent 86 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Reads like a resumé. Article created with a single use account, so this is a likely failure of WP:COI. Caknuck 02:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was belated Speedy Delete.--Hús ö nd 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LeBuna

The article is short in context and violates Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms policy. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom. Simonkoldyk 21:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no context. Even if there were, we'd have a problem with a dicdef of French slang. B.Wind 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom. Tulkolahten 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
How much more discussion do we need? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Gosteli

Was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 (plus the only contributor was Jgosteli which raises strong WP:COI suspicions), but nevertheless the article does attempt to assert some notability, therefore I'm bringing it to AFD instead. My position is delete, appears to fail WP:BIO. Hús ö nd 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

delete Fails WP:BIO. Vanity--M8v2 03:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Claim to notability is running the Alberta chapter of a car enthusiast club (Mx-west car club, an article also created by Jgosteli, and which has a {{Notability}} tag on it). Doesn't do it for me. There's also a mention of a few "side roles" in movies and TV, but, as he has no IMDB credits I can find, I assume that means "extra". Fan-1967 03:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete does not meet WP:BIO requirements and ghits do not turn up anything notable.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. I prodded the club because it is a non-notable chapter per WP:ORG and WP:COI. MER-C 05:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO and it is probably an article about himself (considering the user name) which isn't what wikipedia is for. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:BIO -- Whpq 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as obvious self-promotion. Having "small roles" in one movie and one TV show does not merit an encyclopedia article. Wavy G 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as NN per nom and WP:BIO. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Page has been updated to reflect less biased information - awaiting re-evaluation
Keep per revision. Sharkface217 05:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably the initial author logged out, and none of the concerns have been addressed. MER-C 07:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per everyone above. --Descendall 08:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep New Revision - In accordance to WP:BIO, relevant links to web articles have been added. Keep if this information is satisfactory. --User:Jgosteli 14:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above.Inner Earth 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. NeoJustin 22:00, 7 December 2006
Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as unsourced, userfy on request if someone wants to turn this into an actual, sourced article. "Alexa rank", "premier source", "number of forum members", "obvious notability" are not adequate responses for the lack of sourcing in this article, and combined with the quality of the article itself this means it can't stay in article space in the hope that it might someday get sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 06:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PocketGPSWorld.com

nn websites 9ers 01:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note:User's only contributions are to nominate this for deletion

Keep - notable site that is the premier source of information on UK speed cameras for GPS users. TerriersFan 02:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Alexa rank of 31,473. Several hundred thousand forum members. Pretty good source of info. Does need alot of work though.--M8v2 03:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. While Alexa may be a poor indicator of lack of notability. Having a rank of about 30,000 indicates this site is heavily visited, further confirmed by the number of forum members. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable per above. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete per WP:V - I see no sources in this article, and I don't see much potential for any significant third-party sources. (0 gnews hits) Alexa of 30k isn't enough to escape WP:V. (If some sources are provided, I'm willing to revisit my !vote) ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete for failing WP:CORP and WP:WEB. ~~There appear to be no reliable, non-trivial hits in a Google search for pocketgpsworld -pocketgpsworld.com -pocketgpsworld.co.uk which yields only 271 unique hits.~~ There appear to be no reliable, non-trivial hits in a Google search for pocketgpsworld -site:pocketgpsworld.com -site:pocketgpsworld.co.uk which yields 628 unique hits. Pan Dan 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - over 50,000 Ghits here and Maplin, who are perfectly reputable, confirm the existence of the safety camera database here. TerriersFan 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comments (1) To show notability you have to look for external sources that have written about PocketGPSWorld. That's why you need to exclude the sites pocketgpsworld.com and pocketgpsworld.co.uk from your search. (2) Even once you've done the right Google search, you can't just cite the number of hits to show notability. You have to actually find reliable non-trivial sources among those hits. (3) Re: "confirm the existence" -- no one denies that this company & website, and its services, exist. The question is, does it pass WP:CORP? The Maplin webpage is a trivial source with respect to PocketGPSWorld. Pan Dan 12:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per obvious notability. Sharkface217 05:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Guinnog. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azn clan

nn, vanity, no citations, user's first contribution, bad grammar...Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per G1. --Dennisthe2 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. Note that a merge has already been performed. Although it is probably the case that there is now too much detail in the article, that issue does not need to be decided here. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1998 season

New page for one table is too much. I suggest merge to Shunsuke Nakamura or delete Tulkolahten 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Other nominated articles:
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1997 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1999 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2000 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2001 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2002 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2002-2003 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2003-2004 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2004-2005 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2005-2006 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2006-2007 season

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tw6dd 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete the content too, it's useless. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Shunsuke Nakamura. - Neier 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Abbreviated Merge - other Celtic players do not have such lists, nor information on which day a goal was scored. The 'Goals in x season' articles should be deleted, but not unreasonable to first add to Shunsuke Nakamura a very short table summarising the total number of goals per each season (but not per game per season) David Ruben ^Talk 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Short table summarizing goals is already there in his parent article. Tulkolahten 08:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Smerge all No other player has articles as ludicrous as this, and if they do, those articles should also be merged (or deleted). Dare I say "Nakamuracruft"? -- Kicking222 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all and any others like it we may have missed. The information can be added to the Shunsuke Nakamura article as noted by David Ruben, but these articles are rediculous. Every single fact does not need its own article. --Jayron 32 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If information is merged elsewhere, the article needs to be redirect to comply with the GFDL so the info is attributed to who put it there. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1997 season seems to have been left off of the nomination unintentionally. Neier 08:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Added too, thanks. Tulkolahten 08:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Total numbers of goals are a common statistic, details about every single goal in a match or season are too granular a topic for inclusion (be it in the main article or as a separate one). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I just finished merging the tables, and added it to his article after a slight format change. Neier 11:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, I think we should change community consensus to delete these articles when all already mergerd in the parent article. Tulkolahten 11:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete all. There is always a danger of too much indiscriminate information being collected about sports figures by rapid fans, and this is Exhibit A. I accept that standards of notability are notoriously lax for sport (who else can explain why we have articles on reserve goalkeepers for English second division teams?), but this really is a bridge too far. Legis 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Abbreviated Merge Same as David Ruben. Nakamura is Japan's David Beckham, so there are a lot of people who would disagree that his goals aren't notable (especially if you've seem some of his goals...). But it is kind of ridiculous. Either merge them into Nakamura's main article or create one article for all his goals. Captkrob 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is far more detail than RSSSF.com and most sports almanacs have. We should reduce the data to total goals scored each season, merge it in Nakamura's article, and get rid of the rest. We shouldn't set a precedent leading to databases of every single goal scored by Pele, Maradona, and every other notable footballer. Djcastel 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Josef Bican had 643 league goals and Pelé 636 goals, pretty long article should it be :-) Tulkolahten 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge per above. Sharkface217 05:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge or just delete. I don't care. Just do something with it.Patstuart^talk|edits 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Delete per Wikipedia is not an indescriminate list of information. Patstuart^talk|edits 18:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all as Neier has already merged the content with Shunsuke Nakamura, I agree with Tulkolahten. DrKiernan 15:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all: Where's all of Theirry Henry's goals of one article. Oh, that's right, there isn't one. Someone's obsessed. Very pointless 86.20.53.195 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Cherniak

This looks like a vanity page for a blogger Watchsmart 01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete None notable person/vanity--M8v2 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - His main claim to fame seems to be "While there has never been controversy over whether he should edit his own Wikipedia article, current policy allows him to and he has" - That pretty much says it all right there... Wickethewok 07:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. Probably shouldn't be editing his own article with self-references to Wikipedia policy, but the second paragraph appears to contain at least one notable position he held. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - autobiography, check history. MER-C 12:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:BIO and disagree that any of the positions held oare of sufficient note. -- Whpq 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. - Triviaa 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete non notable person. Bearly541 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Claim to fame is that he is a blogger who edited his own Wikipedia article. Article in its current state is either a personal attack or the most ridiculous form of self-promotion I've seen yet. Wavy G 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. His blog has received several recent mentions in The Globe and Mail and other Canadian national media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.222.175 (talk)
Keep per Mgm. Sharkface217 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Also, the use of the word "vanity" in AFD discussions is now discouraged. Please instead use "conflict of interest" per WP:COI. NeoJustin 22:03, 7 December 2006
Delete vanity :P Danny Lilithborne 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RCSCC Victory

This is an article describing a sub-unit of a larger national unit that doesn't provide evidence of its individual notability. See WP:ORG Sancho McCann 02:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep I would disagree on this one - the article contains several claims to notability. --Brianyoumans 04:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Claims aren't the criteria that articles about organizations need to meet - sufficient notability should be established through reliable and verifiable sources... maybe we should just tag it as needing references then. We'd need to find some third party materials or media coverage to satisfy WP:ORG though. Sancho McCann 05:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep - claim of being the first sea cadet corps formed in Canada would distinguish this sub unit from the others, but no reliable sources are citeed. I've tagged with unref. -- Whpq 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Whpq. Sharkface217 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Whpq. Sancho McCann 06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RCSCC Captain Vancouver

This page describes a sub-unit of a national organization and provides no evidence for its individual notability. See WP:ORG Sancho McCann 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete This looks non-notable. --Brianyoumans 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable chapter per WP:ORG. MER-C 06:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment this can be notable, but if so, we will have articles about each cadet corps, like we do for elementary schools.
Delete - nothing to distinguish this unit from any other. -- Whpq 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Mer-C. Sharkface217 05:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Mer-C. NeoJustin 22:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 189 PORT AUGUSTA

This page describes a sub-unit of a national organization and provides no evidence for its individual notability. See WP:ORG Sancho McCann 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete I agree with nominator on this one. --Brianyoumans 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete now that it's transwikied. ~ trialsanderrors 06:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fibonacci number program

2nd nom. First nom in March. Highly unencyclopedic - a how to manual. Lack of any verification of notability. At first AfD consensus was hard to reach because of the multiple things nominated. - crz crztalk 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Transwiki. Note that all other articles in the first nomination have since been ~~deleted~~ transwikied. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki. riana_dzasta 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki - yes more of a how-to, but its introduction to the topic (vs all teh examples that follow) is encyclopaedic of an important step in learning about recursive programing and limitations on algorithm calculation. Not specified above what teh other articles were, but I presume transfered to wikibooks ? So whilst virtually all of the examples should move, should teh intro remain (with link to the wikibooks article of examples ?) David Ruben ^Talk 03:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki. Add a sentence or two, or even a section, to Fibonacci number about the ability to solve it linearly or recursively. Otherwise that material could be moved to Recursion or somesuch? It's relevant to "fibonacci" or to "explaining recursive", seems like a whole page just for "using fibonacci to explain recursive" is excessive. DMacks 03:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per above. --Fred McGarry 03:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per above. So tagged. MER-C 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikibooks where how-to's belong and leave a link in the programming section of the Fibonacci sequence. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki, this is much more of a manual than an encyclopedia article.-- danntm ^T _C 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per all of the above. Sharkface217 05:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per above reasons. --Ixfd64 08:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per above The Fox Man of Fire 20:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Now transwikied (b:Transwiki:Fibonacci number program), as per requested on b:WB:RFI. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 15:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, don't feed the trolls. — CharlotteWebb 03:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Wilson (wrestler)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non-notable wrestler This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable wrestler.BooyakaDell 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (see below)

According to his talk page, BooyakaDell is a suspected sockpuppet of JB196 who appears to have strong feelings with articles about wrestlers. Unless this vote is explained, I think it should not be counted. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. How do you figure he is non-notable? He is a two-time Stampede Wrestling Tag Team Champion according to the accomplishments section. According to our article: "Stampede Wrestling is a Canadian professional wrestling promotion based in Calgary, Alberta that for decades produced a weekly television series that is considered the forerunner of today's WWE." Champion in a televised Championship equals notability for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep As much as I detest wrestling, I think this person is notable. Not a strong keep, (I wouldn't object to this article being deleted) but there is grounds for an article. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Even though Wrestling isnt usually my sort of thing I do belive this article has enough grounds to be kept. Jamesbuc
Keep Notability is asserted in the article SirFozzie 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete changed to Null Vote Sheesh...BooyakaDell 16:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Competes in a professional league. Is a champion in it. --Oakshade 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Mgm. Sharkface217 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I see nothing wrong with the page apart from the fact it still has a stub when it's closer to a 'start'. Govvy 10:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toru (album)

None notable album from a group who's article was deleted itself. M8v2 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 02:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. riana_dzasta 02:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete it should have been deleted with the band. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delere: If the band doesn't warrant an article then the album doesn't. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment 1) there are several other albums for this band: Special:Whatlinkshere/Moana_and_the_Moahunters. 2) The band never seem to have an article anyway: Special:Log/delete&page=Moana_and_the_Moahunters. Patstuart^talk|edits 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - begone --61.114.193.19 12:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Yanksox 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weak man

Wikipedia is not for stuff made up one day. Unreferenced and unwikified. Contested prod. MER-C 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. 06:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samia Munayirji

edits are all from ip users that add nonsense, article created by user with no other contributions Drunken Pirate 02:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable silliness. riana_dzasta 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Pieguy48 03:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete utterly non-notable bio (she won second place in a debate, WOW!) written by a highschool student and/or her friends. Rest of the article is overt attempts at humour. Wikipedia is not Myspace (and you are not funny--just thought I'd throw that in). Wavy G 03:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

dont delete i dont know what ya'll are talking about this page is very informational. it is informing people of real things. you have no valid argument game over.

Please, while we've got you here...I'm dying to know about your invention, "The Wang Hat." Wavy G 05:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete I don't see any real claim of notability, and 80% of it is just silliness. --Brianyoumans 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Let me guess: Samia and a bunch of her friends were hanging out in the computer lab really bored one day... Richfife 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emotronic

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- nn neologism, this is just plain odd, but needs more research and eyes. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a neologism. --Dennisthe2 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless there are any notable artists in the genre. riana_dzasta 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Taking the first half of the name of Genre A, adding the second half of the name of Genre B and declaring a new Genre halfway between the two is a time honored, but totally pointless, tradition. Term is not more than the sum of its parts. - Richfife 05:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - nn neologism, 554 non-wiki ghits outside of myspace. MER-C 12:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per MER-C. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Mer-C. Sharkface217 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Mer-C. NeoJustin 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 22:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedied. Friday (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler divelbiss

Pure nonsense. Speedy tag was taken down by articles creator. No reason given. Person and organization do not exist. M8v2 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Immediate speedy delete per fictional content such as "The minority group rented an ice cream truck fixed with a mounted machine-gun. A series of drive-by shooting occurred, and so far 14 were killed and 30 were wounded" in a riot at Kent State University over attitudes toward penguins. Newyorkbrad 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment (edit conflict) - immediate speedy delete? Hard to get much faster than a speedy. =) With tongue firmly in cheek, --Dennisthe2 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Fair enough, but in my mind there's a difference between someone innocently adding an article about a non-notable person, and a blatantly fictional article that is being expanded with more and more bogus content even as I type these words. Newyorkbrad 03:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - This is now also a gross personal attack page in the opening paragraph (there is a real person with this name), and I'm invoking WP:IAR and blanking the contents. Newyorkbrad 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A1. It's tagged A7 by a user named Yamaguchi, but it won't survive either way. --Dennisthe2 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per others, so tagged anyway. riana_dzasta 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Original research; unverified; appears to be self-promotion by a non-notable, new "religion" (singular). El_C 03:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific religions

(contested PROD) Article is made-up category containing a single entity that is itself WP:NFT; no citations for either entity or category, and description of notability is decidedly weak. DMacks 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as original research. riana_dzasta 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom--M8v2 03:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Pieguy48 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ferrari (Wrestler)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- not notable wrestler another one of these... more eyes please? This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete None notable underground wrestler--M8v2 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per MER-C, no assertion of notability apart from victories over a hip-hop artist, alcoholism, a broadcasting company and one other wrestler. I'm assuming they are the names of other wrestlers without WP articles. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.BooyakaDell 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete not worked for any notable promotions. DavyJonesLocker 21:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep This article was linked to on PWA Roster before being created. Chortin 23:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Just H 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Sharkface217 05:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Mer-C. NeoJustin 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Ever been in WWE, TNA, WCW, ECW? No. By the way, this article, for whatever reason, looks massively created, very little facts, and with the name Ferrari (?!), I wouldn't be suprised. 86.20.53.195 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable wrestler. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Miller (wrestler)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non-notable wrestler. (another one of these...) This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete None notable wrestler. Only 335.--M8v2 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked there wasn't an arbitrary cut-off point. Professional sports people who make money doing their job are usually included, no matter what their rank. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly a professional wrestler because of the "He was ranked 335 in the list of top 500 wrestlers published in Pro Wrestling Illustrated in 2003." - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Two of my fraternity brothers cracked the PWI top 500 in the late 90s simply by wrestling for a few months in a low-budget local circuit in Winnipeg. There's very little method to the rankings, so I wouldn't put too much stock in them. Caknuck 19:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - he was near the bottom of the barrel three years ago in a niché sport. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Should go. On a general note, we seem to have far too many articles on wrestlers compared to, say, ballet dancers (to take another form of choreographic entertainment). Legis 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Mgm. Sharkface217 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - 335 of 500 in 2003? We already have far too much wrestle-cruft on here. And, has anybody actually read the article? It's unsourced, and has nothing to it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. It fails WP:BIO. NeoJustin 22:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above reasons. --James Duggan 05:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do note modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, do not that notability is not a speedy reason. Lack of an assertion of importance is —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cindy shi

Vanity page, non-notable

Delete vanity page, non-notable. --Xtreambar 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Based on this profile, a college freshman who performed well in high school, but nothing to indicate top-level notability. Fan-1967 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Looking at the original version of the page, I'm guessing it was a prank written by a friend. Still, this ain't the place, now is it? - Richfife 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 06:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge all to their respective locales. I'd like to note that the contention that a WikiProject and not this AfD should decide this issue is contrary to both WP:OWN and the deletion policy, which characterises AfD as a public debate. On the other hand, most of those that support deletion seem not to mind a merger very much, so that's probably the most consensual outcome.

As is usual with mass AfDs, yours truly is kindly requesting the community to carry out the decision - i.e., merge the content and turn the article into a redirect. Please link to this AfD in the redirect edit summary and leave the AfD tags on until the merge/redirect is done. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adams County Public Library

Non notable library system in Ohio; I will also be nominating many others, all of which have similar text and do not serve major cities or metro areas. Brianyoumans 04:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also nominated (all in Ohio, all with the same basic format): Garnet A. Wilson Public Library, Herrick Memorial Library, London Public Library (Ohio), Mary L. Cook Public Library, Monroe County District Library, Mount Sterling Public Library, Perry Public Library, Plain City Public Library, Sylvester Memorial Public Library, Wauseon Public Library, Wayne Public Library, Wellsville Carnegie Public Library, Weston Public Library, Willard Memorial Library, Wilmington Public Library of Clinton County There are others that could be nominated, but they are larger or have additional text. --Brianyoumans 04:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep Keeping these seems, I dunno, kind of like professional courtesy from one repository of knowledge to another - Richfife 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all - no assertion of notability. MER-C 06:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all - This should be covered in each municipality/county where each is covered. No assertion of notability beyond mere existance. SImple existing does not make one notable. --Jayron 32 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep All - This is a project of [WikiProject_Ohio and appears on the project page. CRKingston 09:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete All or Merge to their respective localities' articles. Being part of a wikiproject doesn't mean the articles don't need to show noteworthiness, and these don't assert it. In their current state, they're basically directory entries. They have no secondary sources, and convey little information. Shimeru 10:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to whatever locale they serve. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge all as per Shimeru. While I am a part of the WikiProject, notability is a must-have for any article on Wikipedia. Bl a st 12.06.06 0718 (UTC -5)
Merge all to respective localities, as suggested by Shimeru and WP:LOCAL.-- danntm ^T _C 15:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge all. I do not see any point in someone taking an online database and creating an article for each entry. It would be better for a user to look at the source database, which is likely to have more up to date info. Will someone make it his job to update these 3 sentence articles when the library's collection of circulation stats change? Edison 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Edison. If we leave out the information on circulation and number of cardholders, all that is left to merge is the name of the library and a link to its website. Is that worth merging? I think it is fair to assume that just about every locality of substantial size in America has a public library; what would be notable would be if one didn't. --Brianyoumans 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge all into their respective communities' articles. That's the best way to handle articles on libraries, fire depts, police depts, and other local services. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and allow the Project team to decide - As this is a part of WikiProject Ohio, I would STRONGLY suggest that the folks from that project team be made aware of this deletion effort ASAP, and do not take any action until that project team has a chance to thoroughly discuss this. Deleting stuff that is maintained by a project team without their consent is against the spirit of these teams. Outsiders' opinions are fine, but let the team do its job. Scott Mingus 17:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that in matters that involve a significant amount of special expertise, the team involved should be consulted and have a large say (although perhaps not the final word). In this case, I think that most of us possess the knowledge to evaluate the notabiility of stub articles about small to medium-sized library systems. I think it would also be different if the articles were brand new, but they are mostly at least a month old, as I remember, and some older - the team must have been aware of them, since they are tagged as part of the project, and chose to leave them in place. --Brianyoumans 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge all per Shimeru. Is there really anything more than a sentence or two about any of these? As an alternative (or in addition to) merging into each locale's page, could merge all into Ohio Public Libraries. A unified article covering them all might be a viable article...more useful ("where are the libraries?" instead of "tell me about a library if I know which one I want (by name, not location!)"). And would provide more likely notability and opportunity for content beyond a mere directory listing (history of libraries in the state, interesting/unique policies, features or collections, etc). DMacks 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I would object to a "list of Ohio public libraries" article - to me, a list of non-notable things is almost as bad as individual articles. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Brianyoumans 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - True, but such an article could be more than a list. Presuming reliable independent sources are found, a discussion of the state library system including (and not limited to) a list would be encyclopedic. Shimeru 22:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    - My impression of how libraries are organized is that most areas started with local libraries, and only much later developed regional and state systems - and often only to provide services such as inter-library loan. You could certainly talk about the history of libraries in a particular state, but there would be a lot of broad generalizations, and discussing them as a 'system' might be rather stretching it. Nine tenths of the funding, control, and activity is still on the local level. --Brianyoumans 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and allow the Project team to decide- I say let the WikiProject Ohio team decide how to handle this. They may opt for a more consolidated article or merging the article with an article about the location the library is in. That aside, the WikiProject Ohio team did request that this article (and several others) be written, so obviously not everyone views this as "non-notable." I would prefer to see the articles remain and expanded with more history and background. --JonRidinger 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. Sharkface217 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep all, suggest individual noms, although i don't think any of these would fail to meet the required standard for media attention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all, this is a perfect example of a correct mass nomination (very similar articles about very similar subjects), so no need to make individual AfD's. No indication of notability as would be indicated by WP:V sources. I don't mind if this is made by an individual editor or by the members of a project: while the project members are perfectly free to defend the articles by showing that they are notable by providing us good sources to indicate that these libraries have any distinguishing features beyond existing, there is no reason to keep articles only because they are made by the members of a project. On the contarry, they may well lack the impartiality and distance needed to look at these articles and subjects on an AfD. This post[11] on the Project Talk page is not acceptable. Fram 14:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per Fram and Jayron. Also, please recongnise that everyone can take part in discussions and being part of a project does not imply better judgement. Inner Earth 16:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. No larger significance to society. They're important as a group, but not individually notable, just as having good transit in a city is important, but individual roads are not noteworthy. --Improv 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge All into their respective communities articles. NeoJustin 22:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Every library is unique, and the fact that published references are missing from these articles does not mean that such references do not exist. Libraries often have collections about their communities or specific topics which are not duplicated elsewhere, such as Mount Allison University's collection of 19th-century and early 20th-century high school trigonometry textbooks, or the Toronto Reference Library's impressive Sherlock Holmes collection. In some cases, such a collection was built by a private collector and was later donated or bequeathed to the library, and bears the donor's name. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandler Public Library.

In general, I think that Wikipedia deletion process throws away a lot of good, or at least salvageable, articles, and that the damage to the encyclopedia and to the morale of individual editors caused mass deletions does outweighs any benefit. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep all, Merge if necessary, and let Wikiproject Ohio decide. A library stub pops up and you guys jump on deleting it when those articles and what to do with them are all still in progress. Again, I'm keepign assuming good faith on WP Ohio's part. --Wizardman 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep all or Merge. TruthbringerToronto couldn't have said it any better. --Rovership27 03:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge all for this and similar, though there will be a few about which assertations of notability can be made, the better precedent is to merge unless others appropriate. I note that all such libraries can be easily found in web search engines, and the information on their own web sites is probably better than anything we excerpt here. DGG 08:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep all mass afd nominations are in poor form, allow the wikiproject to continue its work. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on both accounts: mass nominations are accepted standard procedure, and a project doesn't decide which articles are kept and which deleted (although their input as to why they feel any particular article should be kept can of course be valuable). So, do you have anything to say about these articles, or can your opinion (and all similar ones) be ignored as not discussing the merits of the articles wrt policies and guidelines? Fram 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep all and allow the project team to decide, as per JonRidinger above. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment This AFD is now ancient. Could an admin please either close it or relist it? --Brianyoumans 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 05:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leonard zimmerman

Author whose only claim of notability is an autobiography published by a vanity press. The article was prodded, with the article's author removing the prod without comment. FreeKresge 04:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you speedy delete this one? I don't see any real claim of notability. --Brianyoumans 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You've got to admit that anyone who publishes an autobiography at 21 doesn't lack for confidence, but Delete as non-notable. Fan-1967 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete As much as an inclusionist I am, I don't see why this subject is worthy of an article at this time. --Oakshade 05:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete does not appear to be notable enough Alex Bakharev 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Um, no. If he does make good on his promise to run for office, he'll thank us for deleting this lame article just like he'll thank his editor for removing 5 chapters from his book. - Richfife 05:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technisoft, Report Manager, and Service Manager

Non-notable company and products. "Technisoft" gets only self-generated g-hits and "Technisoft Report Manager" receives only hits on this company's website. Please see WP:CORP and WP:SOFT for Wikipedia's guidelines for corporation and software notability. --BigDT 04:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete them all per nom. They also sound a little adish.--M8v2 04:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all Three unique GHits for a piece of software is almost willfully obscure. - Richfife 05:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per above. MER-C 06:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all mmm. Tastes like spam. --Jayron 32 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - at least one is a copyvio (see google's cache version; site is currently down: [12]) others are spam anyway. -Patstuart^talk|edits 13:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. NeoJustin 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete The software listed is obscure at best, and the fact it only gets 3 ghits is testament to its obscurity. The pages also appear to read more like a spiel or advertisement. There is no reason, at this time, to keep them. --SunStar Net^talk 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Guidance please. Will agree to remove Report Manager, though would like to list it as a product under Technisoft. Service Manager is one of the most widely respected service management software products in use worldwide. A Google search of "technisoft service manager" will return 1100+ hits. At what point does a company or company product become notable enough to allow it to have a Wikipedia entry? Microsoft Dynamics GP is a competing product that does have a Wikipedia entry ... Accpac and The Sage Group distribute Service Manager and Report Manager worldwide. Refer http://www.sage.com/news.php?id=196 for a feature article on Service Manager. Fkrugerx 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
To further support my case. Service Manager certainly comforms to Notability test "The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor." Refer http://sage.com "Sage is a leading supplier of business management software and services to 5.2 million customers worldwide." Technisoft is a development partner of The Sage Group and Service Manager is the company's flagship product. Fkrugerx 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
rm -rf * / delete - per nom --61.114.193.19 12:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
KEEP need to be cleaned up - BUT, overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP/WP:SOFTWARE. "Good article" is not a criterion for inclusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete All as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services and, as proposed, WP:SOFTWARE. -- Satori Son 06:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duncan's Toy Chest

Trivial Content. This is a fictional location that appears in only one movie. There is no reason it should have its own page, when most of the information it contains can already be found in the page for Rookery Building and Home Alone 2. Duncan's toy chest is otherwise never directly referred to in any other media or Home Alone movie. Ghilz 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge a brief synopsis to Home Alone 2: Lost in New York - Richfife 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. -WarthogDemon 05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per the nominator. This doesn't require deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and did the merge and redirect - Richfife 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was The result of this AfD was Keep - Notability has been asserted. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emilia Attias

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Otto4711 04:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep - This woman is an international supermodel. On the cover of lots of magazines, including Maxim. [13][14] [15] [16] [17] 75,300 ghits.[18]. --Oakshade 05:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I can't read Spanish, but there seem to be a lot of pages in Spanish on her. The pictures look good, though... --Brianyoumans 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't get supermodels and normally I like nothing better than !voting Delete, but... She's out there. 75K+ GHits. - Richfife 05:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Stubby, but there are enough references out there to expand should anyone choose to. Passes Primary Notability Criteria. Article should be expanded, not deleted. --Jayron 32 06:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable per Oakshade. Needs expansion, but being a stub is not reason to delete. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No Guru 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of television personalities

Indiscriminate list of anyone who's appeared on TV ever. Unmaintainable and unencyclopedic. Otto4711 05:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Certainly better served by a category, but even that strikes me as unnecessary. The subject is too all encompassing to be useful. What possible homework assignment could be aided by this article? You gotta salute the work that went into it, though. - Richfife 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - arbitary, useless, unmaintainable and indiscriminate listcruft. Worse still, it encourages people to create articles on non-notable losing reality TV contestants. And they have clearly been !voted off this island. MER-C 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete What MER-C said. --Jayron 32 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per MERC. meshach 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is a prime example of an indiscriminate list. Listing everyone who ever appeared on TV is not useful or encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete phew, yeah, too indiscriminate. --Canley 13:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, a bare list of links, etc. But this article is just those things. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, too broad etc. Punkmorten 17:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unreasonably broad in scope.-- danntm ^T _C 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete A necessarily incomplete and ultimately pointless list of names. Not in any way an appropriate encyclopedia article.--Anthony.bradbury 19:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Why are so many people creating these pointless lists? If the same energy went into improving and referencing existing articles it would have a tremendous impact the quality of Wikipedia. This is list is particularly broad, pointless and Wikipedia is not a directory. WJBscribe 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete A full-time staff of editors could work for years and not even make this close to complete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Note This article has existed for over 4 years before getting an AFD. Is that a record? - Richfife 04:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note Did I say 4 years? I meant to say 5: [19] - Richfife 19:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above points. 4 years? Jesus. Sharkface217 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. The article existed 4 years ago bc Wikipedia was much smaller, and had less references. Now it should go. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. 4 years is a long time on Wikipedia.NeoJustin 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete too many. However, it could be Keep, and split into countries e.g. List of English TV personalities, List of French TV personalities, so the lists will be smaller. Only a suggestion. 86.20.53.195 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, nem con.. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Talk (game)

Completely non-notable "word game". Was deleted as an uncotested prod, and that deletion was later contested. WP:NOT for things you made up on the playground one day. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Is there a "Wikipedia is not for strange things you can do with Google" rule? If not, then I need to get cracking on the fun "Extreme Googling" game I came up with. - Richfife 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - WP:NFT. MER-C 06:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NN and WP:NFT. tgies 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to promote the crap you and your buddies made up --Jayron 32 06:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all. meshach 06:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Just another algorithm. Fails the basic definition of a game. Because "Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interactivity." (the article fails to mention it needs players too). This aims to be funny. There's no way you can "win". - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete No credible sources, no credible claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - quick, please! Snalwibma 14:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as textbook WP:NFT.-- danntm ^T _C 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - if some historians sit down 100 years from now, and read this article, they will totally get the wrong opinion. The fact is, this game just isn't notable. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete no demonstration that this is at all widespread enough, comes across as Yet Another Clever Google Hack. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination Noclip 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom. FirefoxMan 22:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - somebody snowball this thing. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Junglebop

Obscure and non-notable music genre. 105 ghits outside of Wikipedia and myspace. Fails WP:V. Contested prod. MER-C 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. tgies 08:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per lack of notability and verifiability. Prolog 09:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. But Jazz link to this page, so I put a request of comment in that article discussion. - Cate | _Talk 10:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just summarily remove it as this genre is too obscure and nn. I've done that before to a number of nn stuff which got woven in as spam. MER-C 12:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. James084 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Eagle 101. (aeropagitica) 06:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human-capital Century

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Non-notable neologism. 321 ghits This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casey James

NN person, I don't see how it lives up to WP:PORNBIO. I know it went through 2 other AFDs but the first I believe was breaking WP:POINT and the second was no consensus. Also, now that we have a new guideline, I feel this deserves to be revisited. Dismas|^(talk) 05:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: For ease of reference by others, the first AfD is archived here and the second is here. Tabercil 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Clearly doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 09:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: checking before I run off and try and find / verify a few things, but I believe she qualifies under Criteria 6 for notability within Genre and also wondering if for genre oriented discussions, would the "playmate of the month" rule apply (Criteria 2)if they were of a similar title in a genre oriented magazine as opposed to strictly mainstream like Playboy / Penthouse? (ie. Hustler's Busty Beauties, Gent, Score, etc in this persons case)Charlam 00 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Doesn't come close to satisying any BIO notability guidelines. Valrith 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Charlam's comments and I don't see any reason to change the outcomes of the first 2 AfDs. --Oakshade 19:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per porn --61.114.193.19 12:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails pornbio, just another retired former cam whore. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of wrestlers in movies

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is pretty indiscriminate "List of [your choice of profession] appearing in movies". Delete. Ohconfucius 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Indiscriminate, arbitary, unmaintainable listcruft. --The Way 06:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - you stole my deletion reason. MER-C 06:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per norm. meshach 06:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete that's gotta hurt! Guy (Help!) 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Not indiscriminate at all. Has clear inclusion criteria and appears to be of a manageable length. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
keep, wrestling/movie crossovers aren't that common and have been something of a noted phenomenon. The Rock got a lot of press for it, so this would make sense as a list of similar examples. Needs cleanup and reformatting though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment "it's not that common" doesn't seem to be borne out by the large number of names on the list. Legis 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think the more interesting phenomenon is the few wrestlers who have a large number of movies, demonstrating something of a career, which this makes visible at a glance. If we wanted to prune it, we could separate out those who have only appeared in one movie from those who have done several. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- As Night Gyr mentioned, it is an uncommon phenomenon. If you had checked that list, it covers a span of several decades with those few representing a profession whose members number in the thousands. Vladamire Steelwolf 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as an indiscriminate list. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Night Gyr. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. The nom says it all. Agent 86 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep "indiscriminate:" failing to make or recognize distinctions [20]. I see some clear distinctions in what this data is. The movie-wrestler crossover is a lot more special then something like a plumber-movie crossover. Then again, this could be dealt with in a category... so I'm wishy-washy on this. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Categories can't tell you which movies they appeared in, or how many. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Night Gyr. Sharkface217 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. NeoJustin 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unmaintainable. Who is going to be responsible for this list the next time a wrestler appears in a film? Aside from the people adding cleanup tags to this, it has been sitting in a vacuum since creation. Salad Days 05:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling? It's not going to be that frequent an event, and usually garners some media attention. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Fancruft at best. What's next? Sports stars in movies? Reality stars in movies? RobJ1981 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Night Gyr. Vladamire Steelwolf 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
(Delete) but convert to a Category. Yep at the moment this is just a list. What the page really needs is a couple of paragraphs on how the wrestlers evolved from wrestling to acting. A few pictures inserted. This shouldn't really be a list at all. But what can be done is make a category of wrestlers in movies. That would be better. Govvy 12:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. No category is needed for this. As far as I know: we don't have a category for sports stars in movies, or anything similar to that. Wrestlers roles in movies, should be mentioned on the wrestler articles only. No article or category is needed. RobJ1981 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 09:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Bower (wrestler)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non-notable wrestler This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Is 1-time International Tag Team Champion (with Chris Benoit) with Stampede Wrestling. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Competes in a fully professional league in a very popular sport. Passes WP:BIO. --Oakshade 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep passes WP:BIO. Sharkface217 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to category, which is cheap and easy.. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of 1896 films

Another set lists by the same someone who has mistaken Wikipedia for IMDB Lite at List of Finnish films. The beginning of a series of text dumps taken from IMDB (copyvio, not a reliable source) used to create a series of lists (better in categories) for indiscriminate information (WP:NOT#DIR), so the creator can ultimately create several thousand stubs on utterly non-notable films. In case there's any doubt about the creator'S intentions, take a look at List of 1896 films for the letter A and the letter B. Included are future text dumps from 1888 to 1910 and any potential text dumps through 2009, as the honking big template on the page seems to threaten. Calton | Talk 06:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete more categories masquerading as lists. Indiscriminate, and thus deletable. Also, a friendly-worded cease-and-desist request for this users talk page may be in order. --Jayron 32 06:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment The user is working with the Films WikiProject, I believe, in good faith. Her Pegship 06:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Reply I agree that the edits were made in good faith. I made some comments on the users talk page to explain the position that while we appreciate the effort, these organization attempts would be better served by categories than by lists. It is a noble cause, I agree, but poorly executed in this case. We want this user to continue to do good work here, just in a way that is more in line with policy. --Jayron 32 07:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There's no indication we have articles to put in such a category, but the list clearly isn't working. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 12:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete good faith or not, we do nobody a service by keeping this in the pretence that it may one day be encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. We already have year-in-film categories. We don't need lists with the same information. In response to the nominator, I don't believe lists can be copyrighted so I wouldn't call it a copyvio, and I don't consider IMDb to be a completely unreliable source either. But in any event, this list (and the others proposed) are not needed. 23skidoo 17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per others. Punkmorten 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Sharkface217 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For God's Sake everybody. I am redirecting to categories which already have lists. However I may need to draw up lists for films betweeen 1896 and 1910 as there are practically no films in the categories. Oh yes of course a lists of films by year is really unencyclopedic. You really amaze me people. Navigation box is remaining though - useful for connecting all years in fuilms not just near years/ User:Calton is a serious knob that he wants to delete everything I do Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirected everything to catwgories which serve as lists and also tell us what films exist on wikipedia. Case closed, Template will remain to navigate between the entire years of film histiry because at present in the categories it is by decade. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be a good idea to maintain a list of redlinked films by year and nation of origin within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films namespace so people working on that project can use it to work from. I am just not sure such a list belongs in the Mainspace. --Jayron 32 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Northerner (train). I don't see obvious mergeable content that isn't already in the Northerner article, but the edit history will be retained in case someone wants to move something or flesh out this article and recreate it. ~ trialsanderrors 06:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Ordinary) Express (train)

(contested prod) Redundant, copy of Northerner, but highlighting the original nickname of 2 trains. I'd suggest merge, but since that same information is in Northerner, there is really nothing to merge, so I say delete. Diez2 06:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: This article can be fleshed out as the Ordinary Express had a pretty long history (we're talking decades here) before it was replaced by the Northerner in the 1970s. I don't really want to put work into the article if it's only going to be deleted anyway, but if there's a chance of saving it, I'll get out my sources. and see what information I can add. - Axver 07:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect the information is redundant to, and can be readily handled by, a history section in its succesor train, Northerner (train).-- danntm ^T _C 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that an article on this train is redundant. The Ordinary Express actually had a longer lifetime than the Northerner, so I don't see why it should be relegated to a history section of the Northerner. There is probably plenty to say about it - one of us just needs to get out some books and work on it. My previous offer stands: if there is a chance this article can be saved, I will put work into expanding it. - Axver 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect per danntm. --Dennisthe2 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Sounds like there should be enough information out there to write a decent article on this, even though it's a short stub right now. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge This article seems redundant. It really is about Northerner (train) and that's where it's appropriat to merge to. --Oakshade 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above points. Sharkface217 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. No content. Entry may be recreated so long as there is content. El_C 12:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operations in Somaliland

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- orphan. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. The page is a redirect, if you look in the history. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Nothing links to Operations in Somaliland. The redirect was to Sayyid Mohammed Abdullah Hassan (Maxamed Cabdulle Xasan) aka Mad Mullah. I see no connection. Theres no need for this redirect unless someone is going to provide information about Operations in Somaliland --ElectricEye (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 12:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonestown, Demerara

No sources provided, and googling the name turns up nothing but references to the other Jonestown, making me think this is a possible hoax. Even our own articles on Demerara-Mahaica and Demerara make no mention of it. Needs references, or else should be deleted as unverifiable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: No this is not a hoax. This is a real place. If in doubt, Google "Jonestown" "Mahaica" for confirmation of its existence -- for example, this. References I can do, but they might take some time. This nice little article was just about my first contribution. I sincerely hope it is not about to be done in by mere impatience. -- Lonewolf BC 08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but all I'm turning up on the name are mentions of people who happen to be from the place, nothing that supports anything actually stated in the article. I have no opposition to an article about a town, but we need to be able to source what we write. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That was just to show the place is for real. Full referencing I can't give you with that kind of immediacy. ;-) The point is that this is not some elaborate joke, and that I'd be grateful for some slack, at least timewise. I'm not suggesting that we needn't be able to source. -- Lonewolf BC 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Prod and AFD both take at least five days. Five days isn't that much of a rush to find a single source. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: It's not a hoax. Maybe the article just needs work and it's contributors need to cite sources. --ElectricEye (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn, reference provided. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediatpress

Non-notable company. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-06 07:41Z

Delete fails WP:CORP (wow these pre-made asterisks are luxurious! only 2 left!comment and you'll see) James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - and added another asterisk for the guy after next :-) Frater Xyzzy 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN, and thanks for the asterisk =^_^= --Dennisthe2 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pandagon

Non-notable blog. The site fails WP:WEB. The passing mention in Playboy is trivial and does not satisfy the WP:WEB requirement. Should be deleted. RWR8189 07:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not fail WP:WEB at all. It is a major political blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IrnBru001 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Folantin 08:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 12:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: "The passing mention in Playboy" is that magazine's October 2006 list of the "Top Ten Political Blogs". This does not seem a "trivial" distinction. It thereby meets criterion #2 of WP:WEB: "The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation." – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 16:17, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Keep: it was just nominated as a finalist for "best liberal blog" in the 2006 Weblog Awards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.127.75 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

* Keep The Fox Man of Fire 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Pandagon is basically a hate site. It would do badly as a page in the wikipedia since it would encourage wiki nazis to police it and make sure that any evidence that it was a hate site would remain deleted. OTOH, they had a major dick fight with FARK tonight and they lost with Amanda's panty's getting so knotted up they disappeared up her slit. She then proceeded to moderate all the comments from FARK out while calling FARKers a bunch of rapists. http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2460478 Yeah, so delete Mr.POV 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Its consider a major liberal political blog. If other blog have survived this (most likely POV) challenge this one should too. IrnBru001 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --HarmonicFeather 06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at the requirements of the standard? "Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria." Three different example have been cited to satisify criteria two "he website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation." First the Play Boy award, second the Weblog Award, third being a featured blog at a major political conference. There is a fourth the Wampum Award that they have also won that I'm trying to find a good source for. So given these 3 example and given that I only need one how does this fail the test? IrnBru001 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Whether it can be fairly characterized as "a hate site" is immaterial. We're judging notability, not virtue. JamesMLane t c 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. yandman 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain why it doesn't meet the second criteria as I have suggested it does? This is a discussion not just a vote. IrnBru001 17:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Weblog Awards and the Take Back America conference do not get articles, and they are sited as awards. Awards must be notable to be counted. Being in the top ten of a major magazine is not enough, unless it was above #3. FirefoxMan 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion. I believe both are important enough to get their own articles. I see no reason to think that the top ten of a major magazine isn't enough. Your claim in not supported in the guideline. The article mets the current guideline, you are now trying to change the guideline. The article needs to be judged against the guideline AS IT IS WRITTEN. If you want to change that guideline then discuss it on that pages talk page. IrnBru001 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider it an award to be in a list, and AfDs are supposed to be ask users for their input and opinion on the noteworthiness of a article. FirefoxMan 23:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge with Chandler, Arizona (which I've done). Proto::► 10:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chandler Public Library

non notable public library system in Arizona; no particular claim to notability that I can see. Previous prod removed by User:TruthbringerToronto. Brianyoumans 08:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep It's a Public library in Arizona. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And my left big toe is a body part. It still doesn't get an article. What is your point? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Expand. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to wherever it is located. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Chandler AZ or add content and references to show notability. Edison 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Chandler, Arizona], or expand the article. (cf. proposed WP:LOCAL).-- danntm ^T _C 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Every library is different. The Chandler library has been involved with an innovative program to promote literacy and library use among people who live in public housing, for example. Maintaining a separate article for a library makes it easier to find information on the library by searching from a list or category of public libraries. Some libraries serve multiple municipalities and therefore don't merge well into a single town's article. In general, libraries have collections of books and other materials about their local areas that are not duplicated elsewhere, and the Chandler library presumably has a significant amount of information related to Chandler that may represent a notable collection, and as well a resource that a Wikipedian living in Chandler could draw upon to create articles based on print sources which are unavailable online. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Merge It is a public library. Sharkface217 05:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Chandler, Arizona]. I'm unable to find any useful sources for making notability claims but a town's libraries are a reasonable thing to have covered in a town's article. JoshuaZ 05:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge or delete, whichever seems most appropriate. I don't really get what TruthbringerToronto tries to say here. Because someone in the Chandler region may use the library (or more specifically, some books, magazines, ... in the library) to compose articles for Wikipedia, we should keep the library article? I thought our policies indicated that subjects had to be the subjects of multiple verifiable sources by reputable publishers, not that the subject only had to be useful (or "different": every person is different, every snowflake is different, that's no reason to have an article). The sources added are interesting, but for me still too weak to keep this as a separate article (the first one is a very short mention, and the second is more of a directory entry, the Chandler public library being one of the more than 600 repositories in Arizona indexed on this site). While this library is more important than the usual village library, it still is not verifiably important enough to have its own article. Fram 14:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Edison, JoshuaZ. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I was referring specifically to the library's special collections of local material that could not be easily located elsewhere, such as local history materials and hard-copy or microfilmed back volumes of local newspapers. Most libraries have such collections. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment I agree: every city and town (of some size) has a public library, and almost all of them feature collections of material on local subjects. Every town also has telephone directories, published by the local phone company (and, in recent years, other companies)... should we have special articles on them, or should that info be merged to the local articles so that Wikipedia researchers can find them? I would argue that these sort of things are so common and similar from town to town as to be non notable. --Brianyoumans 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment . No, the special collections of each library are unique and not purely local, such as Mount Allison University's collection of 19th-century and early 20th-century high school trigonometry textbooks, or the Toronto Reference Library's impressive Sherlock Holmes collection. In some cases, such a collection was built by a private collector and was later donated or bequeathed to the library, and bears the donor's name. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      - If no one has talked about the collection in any detail in non-trivial sources it is very hard to see it as having any significiant notability. There's no reason not to include a note about the library details in the main articles but we simply don't have enough for a full article. JoshuaZ 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete If we allow every public library to get its own article, we will be overrun with articles from the millions of libraries around the world. FirefoxMan 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If those hypothetical articles adequately demonstrate the uniqueness of each library, then the articles would make the encyclopedia better. In practice, if a library is not much different than other libraries, people are unlikely to contribute an article about it. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams County Public Library. --Brianyoumans 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge or delete per Fram. Inner Earth 11:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - using a bit of judgement, not a single one of those sources is reliable, anyway ... if/when a reliable source does appear, the article can be recreated. Proto::► 10:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Cause 2

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Pure speculation. Contested prod. MER-C 08:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NN. tgies 08:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. Prolog 09:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Strong Delete~~ per nom. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - More than speculation. According to all of these reports (and many more), Avalanche CEO Christofer Sundberg confirmed it's really being made. [21][22][23][24][25] --Oakshade 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep This "crystalball" is real per Oakshade: [26][27][28][29][30] --ElectricEye (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm surprised about this vote with the new info about it being reported that it's being made. --Oakshade 05:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Yes, Oakshade, I agree. Sharkface, some people actually try study the AFD's you know. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wii release data

This information is already present in Wii, verbatim. I see no need for a separate article for this. tgies 08:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hangon. Jecowa 08:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's no longer verbatim. I created this article as a split from the Wii article to reduce the size of the Wii article. So far I have brought the size of the Wii article down to 47kb from 58kb. It would be nice to be able to keep this data in a seperate article while limiting the Wii article to the data on English-speaking countries. Is this acceptable? Jecowa 08:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep Great info and now broken up into better categories... so im not ready to delete just yet. MrMacMan 09:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Merge~~ to Wii. Do we really need a seperate article. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment We don't need separate articles, but by separating them reduces clutter on the Wii article. Compare the size of the release data section of the Wii article to that of the Wii release data article. Splitting this section into a new article is desirable per Wikipedia:Summary style. This is also touched on at Wikipedia:Article size. Jecowa 11:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Yes, I see. --ElectricEye (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep --ElectricEye (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, breaking out shortened the original article while maintaining useful well-sourced information. (I'm still not buying one). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, for the above reason (minus personal comment). Just64helpin 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sosb 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Okay, you've convinced me :D tgies 22:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Uh... did the person requesting article deletion just vote to keep? MrMacMan 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment. yeah no kidding kid get with the program we're trying to run an internet here tgies 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Can be made into a great article. Sharkface217 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Wii, will be irrelevant in a few months. Noclip 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep for now, anyway Tempest115 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep renominate in a few months FirefoxMan 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A needed split now that it's no longer current information. -Ryanbomber 13:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete following transwiki. Proto::► 10:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fideli Certa Merces

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Aussie King Pin 08:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Does this go to Wiktionary? --ElectricEye (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary which is a dictionary. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. So tagged. MER-C 12:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Transwikied. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete --ElectricEye (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Call of Duty mods

Indiscriminate information, WP:NOT a repository of links or a web directory, 8 mods, only one of which is notable (and has it's own article anyway.) The Kinslayer 09:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 09:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. List of a lot of external links. Mods aren't notable from the one with an article. You can't put one article in a list. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Mgm. Mods are generally not notable, a perennial problem for those who seek to include them. Somewhere else, please. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge back into the Call of Duty article section on Mods any information not already there. -- Upholder 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The notable mods can have their own articles, but the list of non-notable mods shouldn't warrant a separate article. --Alan Au 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and comments above. Sigh. WJBscribe 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete a lot of mod articles have come up for deletion recently, so this may have been an attempt to sidestep that by listifying them. In any case, virtually no information, more like a list of external links, and we all know WP:NOT a web directory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge, per Upholder. Comment: Seems people are getting over zealous with AFD nominations, finally pushed me into getting involved after an article I wrote was nominated and butchered. Join the counter offensive by replying to the WP:CVG/D AFD debates. --MegaBurn 21:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Keep or Merge Highly notable game, and with notable modding community. Bfelite 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- 8 mods is not 'notable'. The Kinslayer 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Its a reasonable point, perhaps merge is better option. Bfelite 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Mgm. NeoJustin 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable mods, significant mods can be mentioned on Call of Duty article. --Scottie theNerd 04:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nom. Half Life list as been deleted recently and if one list is not good enought to be here and gets deleted not because of being Half-Life but for being a list then following the same logic all similar lists should be also deleted. Snewerl 14:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: As Half-Life has one of the most extensive mod lists, if that list is deleted, others like it should definitely go too. --Scottie theNerd 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per MER-C Nashville Monkey 09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy: Dark Chronicles

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non notable fan game. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 09:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - A whole lot of crystal ballery. Fan-game projects based on existing big-money franchises rarely last long into their development before the lawyers send in the cease-and-desist orders. An uncompleted, unpublished fan game will almost certainly not have those all-important third-party, non-trivial sources for verifiability. Zero Google hits for "Dark Chronicles" "Ghost Game Productions". ~Matticus ^T_C 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Article is one big advert for a non-released fangame. "The game was started in July, 2006 and is scheduled for release in December 2007." Crystal-ballery to boot. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable fan game, unsourced and unverifiable crystal ballery, fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - This article was speedy deleted yesterday and re-added this morning, I think perhaps that should've been the reason for speedy deletion. Timkovski 14:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- It was speedy deleted as spam, and contained maybe one or two sentences that were "spammy" in nature, so I think that was a bit weak reason to delete it. Not really any worse than this revision; I think this one is even less spammy in tone. While it won't save the article, I say we go through AfD process just for the heck of it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete - Apalling crystal ballery, I'm amazed how little information they have, yet can take up so much room on a page! The Kinslayer 18:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Rather nasty looking stub, if some decent information can be added I'll change my position. --MegaBurn 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fan game, and not even close to beinf released, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, 9 hits on Google, reads like a advertisement, pure vanity. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Uh... someone's RPGMakerXP epic that is released next year. Or maybe the year after that. Maybe. Not yet worthy an article, sorry; welcome back if it becomes a sneaky mega-hit it once it's released... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Matticus. NeoJustin 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete fan game, the end. Danny Lilithborne 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic place names in America

This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here. While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Wikipedians; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See Wikipedia:Canvassing.

Delete. Quite apart from the obvious unencyclopaedic purpose of this article- to promote what can only be an extreme minority viewpoint even among Muslim communities, namely that Islam had a presence in the Americas pre-Columbus- this article is misconceived as well as misinformed. Islam is a religion not a language, and it is no more sensible to claim that placenames are etymologically "Islamic" than it would be to claim they are Christian, Jewish, Taoist, Animist or whatever. The cited "source" drawn upon for the article hardly seems to be (and is not represented as) a credible one for this 'research', and as such the contents are indicative of OR. cjllw | TALK 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - as per reasons given.Maunus 11:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - the source claims there were mosques and Islamic schools in America pre-Columbus. A highly improbable and definitely non-notable view.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I note that he establishes source and argues rationally. Are you accusing the initial author/editor of bad faith ? -- Simon Cursitor 15:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He does not argue, and certainly not rationally, he presents clearly controversial research by one fringe researcher as uncontradicted fact. He doesn't establish that the placenames are either "islamic" or even that they are precolumbian (there is a town called Hell does that prove diabolical presence in preocolumbian ameria?) And he doesn't cite any complementary sources or accepted etymologies. If not exactly bad faith (which I might be inclined to think) the page is definitely pushing a bizarre and non-notable POV in a non encyclopedic manner.Maunus 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the one source doesn't check out at all. it's a totally different article. I also might like to remind you of WP:AAGF, assume the assumption of good faith. If we're going a theory this wild, then it needs to prove itself notable by several sources. As of now, it has 0. Patstuart^talk|edits 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. MER-C 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete soapboxing. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom, non notable view voldemortuet 16:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete OR Dragomiloff 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete really bizarre soapboxing GabrielF 01:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete weird - unless we can provide the names of each of the aliens at Area 51 (is this comment uncivil?) Patstuart^talk|edits 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom, clearly a fringe view held by a few individuals. Abstrakt 18:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute! Hey, guys wait a minute! First of all, WP:NPOV states:

by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority

Also

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article

Considering that we have Flat Earth, this clearly shows that this article could very well exist. As for NPOV and other editoria issues as "presenting theories as facts" and such, those are not grounds for afd, its only grounds for editing. Regarding sources, the given article indeed is about this topic. I also missed it, but if you scroll down a bit to the First Immigrants of the New World section, you will see it. Also, in that article they make claims of notability for those holding that view. A small example:

Barry Fell (1917 - 1994), British-born and distinguished Harvard professor of marine biology, wrote "Saga America" one year after his retirement in 1980, which proves the existence of Muslims in America.

Also:

Salih Yucel began to search for the traces of lost Islam in the United States just after his appointment to Redfern Mosque in Sydney, Australia, as a religious official, 14 years after his graduation from Ankara University‘s Faculty of Theology.

So the article is clearly sourced and makes claims of notability. So far, the above disscussion (this is not a vote) has been regarding this being a minority view and having NPOV issues, and i have referred to policy and precedence to prove that those are not grounds for deleting. And i have showed that the article is indeed sourced, makes claims of minority scholarship and is not a hoax. What arguments for deleting remain? --Striver 17:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither Fell nor Yucel are reliable sources (Feel was a marine biologist dabbling in the esoteric, Yucel is a moslem religious specialist, neither are hisorians nor are their theories even discussed by historians, this does indeed constitute a very small minority view - probably more people believe the earth is flat). None of the claims of references are verifiable the way they are quoted, and if they were verifiable it would only be in nonreliable sources. You haven't really shown anything with your lawyerism. Maunus 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

lawyerism? Is that an insult? They are not RS? Is that relevant? Are you arguing that the guys that view the earth to be flat are RS? C'mon. Or are you maybe arguing that they do not exist? "probably more people believe the earth is flat". Is that your view? Any support of it? I have a hard time believing that. --Striver 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My only problem is that I don't see any case for this being a notable minority POV. IMHO, it looks more like the discertation that some Harvard professor believed, and decided to put on Wikipedia. Can you find sources that talk about how this movement has a following? If so, please do add them to the article, and clean the thing up so it doesn't look like it's being presented as factual, but rather, a small group of people hold the belief. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That should be enough to establish a tiny minority. Now, could you please provide me with one (1) Harvard scholar that views the earth to be flat?--Striver 04:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Listcruft. Wikipedia ain't for stuff made up in school one day. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh... sorry? How is that relevant to the works of a Harvard professor?--Striver 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless the Harvard professor has a notable following, we can't include every work that a Harvard professor has done, especially without noting that it's a fringe work. Once this place names thing becomes a notable movement, with many followers, then include it. Otherwise, it's just a few people. I should have phrased correctly above, BTW; tiny minority probably isn't enough. Please show that there is a decent belief for this, and I'll change my "vote". -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, which Harvard Professor? Barry Fell? Despite what the messageboard linked to proclaims, he has nothing whatsover to do with the contents of this list, nor anything really to do with 'establishing' pre-Columbian Islamic presence in the Americas. That source is quite evidently bandying his name about in a misguided attempt to associate some academic credentials behind all this. While Prof. Fell did indeed make a number of claims to have identified petroglyphs in the Americas as having non-American origins, such as in North African and (mainly) Celtic (Ogham) scripts, his ideas in this regard are assessed by the academic community as being outlandish, eccentric and are not seriously contemplated. He did not AFAIK ever claim or set out to claim Islamic presence, though.

Instead, the sole source behind this "research" seems to be a rather obscure figure associated with a mosque in inner Sydney, Australia, with absolutely no demonstration of any credentials, of any kind, whatsoever. This source is reportedly (and reportedly since we've only the word of the original messageboard poster to go by) claiming that not only are these localities in some sense "Islamic" -and per my nominating comments this makes no linguistic sense- ,but also that these localities had these names already, ie before European settlement came along, and thus the "proof" that there was Islamic presence pre-Columbus.

So we are being asked to believe that, for example, Medina, Washington is so named because that is what it was called long before European settlers ever got there. However, even cursory research will show that in this case the township was only established in the late 19th C., and the town's historical society gives a rather different account has to how its name came about- to quote: "A community meeting was held and three women were appointed to select a name for the community. Mrs. Flora Beloti’s choice was the name selected. She had decided on the name “Medeena”, after a popular Arabian city." (and this was in 1891, not 1291).

Clearly, it and presumably the other Medinas in the US were named after the original in Saudi Arabia, but not by any Muslims who were there pre-1492.--cjllw | TALK 07:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Barry Fell conducted a very large study of west african and north african muslims linguistic roots in the Americas before Columbus. This is detailed in his book Saga America

"Dr. Barry Fell (Harvard University) introduced in his book Saga America - 1980 solid scientific evidence supporting the arrival, centuries before Columbus, of Muslims from North and West Africa. Dr. Fell discovered the existence of Muslim schools at Valley of Fire, Allan Springs, Logomarsino, Keyhole Canyon, Washoe and Hickison Summit Pass (Nevada), Mesa Verde (Colorado), Mimbres Valley (New Mexico) and Tipper Canoe (Indiana) dating back to 700-800 CE. Engraved on rocks in the old western US, he found texts, diagrams and charts representing the last surviving fragments of what was once a system of schools - at both an elementary and higher levels. The language of instruction was North African Arabic written with old Kufic Arabic script. The subjects of instruction included writing, reading, arithmetic, religion, history, geography, mathematics, astronomy and sea navigation. The descendants of the Muslim visitors of North America are members of the present Iroquois, Algonquin, Anasazi, Hohokam and Olmec native people. " And it was this Harvard research that formed the backdrop to further work of the rather obscure figure as you put its work 62.129.121.63 13:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... you are arguing regarding the truth factor of the groups theory, and that is actually irrelevant to this article. However, if what you say regarding notability is true, then i am less inclined to champion it's inclusion.--Striver 11:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Academic discourse on pre columbian prescence of muslims in America is quite established . It is a shame that so many wikipedians are unaware of this recent acedmic historical research. Here are some books that cover the research in some depth

Amir Nashid Ali Muhammad Muslims in America - Seven Centuries of History ISBN 0-915957-75-2
Muslims in American History - A forgotten legacy Jerald F Dirks ISBN 1-59008-044-0
Deeper Roots Dr. Abdul Hakim Quick
Sylvian diouf "slaves of Allah"

What Wikipedians need to appreciate is that this acedemic research is relatively new spanning just 50 years. I have yet to see a barrage of reliable acedemic source that refutes these new findings, as these discourses are becoming increasingly acceptable amonst reputable Historians. 62.129.121.63 12:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. If this was a simple List of Islamic place names in America, without the WP:OR, I wouldn't have an objection. --Dual Freq 12:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep given the highlighted precidence of wikipedia minority viewpoints, given the clear wiki policy, given the irrefutable proof of the existance of a minority acedemic viewpoint from reputable harvard scholars, and writers on the existance of Muslims in the USA pre Columbus. And given that this particular list (as part of a whole series of articles) is built upon Harvard acedemics studies there is no other choice but to keep the article.

It is unfortunate that many of the editors on wikipedia are unaware of this important and recent acedemic study of the history of Muslims in America pre Columbus 62.129.121.63 14:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

comment given the above list of academic books, i stand by my keep. Howerver, the article needs to be sourced and to state that it a new and minority held view.--Striver 15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Article is flawed with soapboxing. Per the Handbook of Texas, the origin of the name Medina in Texas comes from Spanish background [31] for the river (Pedro Medina), with the county getting its name from the river [32], and Medina, Texas in this same region [33]. This is probably not the only error of this article. Therefore, Delete. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete I read the article it is fails WP:RS, [[WP:N] and WP:NOR. It is a fringe theory that needs to mentioned somwhere else as a mere line item in an article about place names in the USA but does not deserve an article.RaveenS 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Just awful... - crz crztalk 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep The following professors also support the evidence of pre african (islamic) presence in America pre Columbus
Harvard Professor Leo Wiener
Ivan Van Sertima
Cheikh Anta Diop
Michael Bradley

These scholars contend that long before the arrival of the Spanish, Africans were already trading with, warring with, and inter-mixing with the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere [34] 81.178.99.202 23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Mormon Muslims? Actually, learn to read. That is exactly what the article does not say. It says "from 1502 to 1900." — coelacan talk — 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment / replies:
- - 62.129.121.63: on the contrary, it is your comments which give the appearance of unfamiliarity with the current standing of pre-Columbian historical research. To say "...these discourses are becoming increasingly acceptable amonst reputable Historians" is demonstrably false, at best misleading. Any readings done outside of the same material you have quoted (which is spammed and duplicated across a number of afrocentrist and other miscellaneous messageboards) -say, any peer-reviewed academic journal, Archaeology, Science, etc- would show that these ideas have no acceptance by mainstream historians.
- - Striver,81.178.99.202- while some of these sources may indeed have held or still hold positions in academia -Fell, van Sertima, Wiener- to generally describe what they have written on these subjects as "reputable/academic works or studies" would be misleading. Their publications cited have not undergone any peer-reviewed academic process (which is what "academic publication" means), but instead are popularly published and are no more deserving of an 'academic' label than other well-known fringe/pseudoscientific writers like Erich von Daniken and Zecharia Sitchin.--cjllw | TALK 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Then call them "kooko theories" or whatever, i don't care what you call them. And rewrite to that effect. But this article meets the inclusion terms given by the Flat Earth Society. Being a mainstream science is demonstrably not a inclusion threshold. --Striver 04:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep, According to user:striver and user:62.129.121.63 above explaination. Mak82hyd 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep -- it is clear that this is a researched theory, rather than an ephemeral hoax; also Keep because most of the delete arguments are based on either exclusionism, or resistance to the challenge this article represents to "mainstream" Fundamentalist Christian WASP so-called scholarship -- SockpuppetSamuelson
further comment and clarification: if it is not already clear, it should be noted that the likes of Fell, van Sertima, Diop, Wiener, et al are not the direct or indirect sources for the claims made in this particular article- namely, that a number of "Islamic-sounding" placenames in the Americas have those names because they were called that by some supposed Islamic presence pre-Columbus. While these folks have indeed published works which postulate pre-Columbian African or Islamic presence, they are only mentioned by the messageboard site this material is taken from as being sources which are supportive of the general concept, and not the specific claim. There is no demonstration that any of these "academics" have made the connection on these placenames in their works. At all. The only attributed source for the claim on which this article is based -that all the Medina etc placenames in US are "Islamic"- is the Redfern mosque attendee Salih Yucel, and furthermore we only have the messageboard poster's word for it. Frankly, this is a very poor demonstration of any notable, "researched theory", and on the face of it is barely distinguishable from a hoax. "Fundamentalist Christian WASP so-called scholarship" has absolutely nothing to do with this either.--cjllw | TALK 09:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete some fringe theories are notable. This one is not per lack of reliable sources describing it. Eluchil404 10:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
reply to CJLL Firstly lets not denegrate Yucel as the Redfern Mosque Attendee, as he was a Doctorate student At Harvard and one of his professors was Harvard Professor Fell. His research referenced and detailed these half a dozen harvard and other notable academics works on the subjects. As yet You have failed to produce ANY evidence that the Acedemic circles reject these theories or that it is widespread, or that the research did not undergo Peer review. Yet the arguments for the inclusion of this article have consistantly give sound references of the Harvard historians support of this field of study.

p.s If you read the article that was referenced it says

“

Yucel then traveled to the US to pursue his doctoral degree in "Religion and Mental Health" at the University of Boston; he is currently a preacher at the School of Medicine Hospital of Harvard as well as a member of the religious affairs planning committee of these hospitals. In addition to being on the administration of the Boston Dialogue Foundation, Yucel has researched the traces of Islam on the American Continent for years. The most important findings he notes also concur with the research of his former professor and member of the US Science and Art Academy faculty, Professor Barry Fell.

”

However this all acedemic as it is abundantly clear that this is a acedemic viewpoint that is backed up by half a dozen Harvard Professors as well as other Acedemics, and is contained in several Acedemic Books (which have been listed). And since the precedence and policy of Wikipedia is NOT to exlude minority positions your arguments are moot 62.129.121.63 11:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is most certainly not clear. It is not our task to prove that the viewpoints haven't undergone peer reiew. It is the task of the article creator to refer to reliable sources something which he fails to do. Even if fivehundred harvard proffessos think the theory is sound it is of no importance untill one of them publishes a book about it or an artcile in a peerreviewed journal. The article links to a message board not to any artciles or books. Also being an academic doesn't mean that thei viewpoint hold any leverage at all - the are biologists and theologists not historians. Their statements about history or linguistics hold about as much value as bold claims I might make about quantum physics. Maunus 11:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I still await the peer-reviewed book from the Flat Earth Society.--Striver 11:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I could accept List of Arabic place names in the United States. As for the theory about pre-Columbian Islamic influence, it could be covered in the Barry Fell article, or in a stand-alone article that reports on the theory without adopting it. JamesMLane t c 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable YouTube users

A similar article to this, Notable YouTube memes, was deleted via AfD in October. This article actually pre-dates that one, so it doesn't really qualify for CSD G4. Tried tagging it anyway, but it was removed by an admin, so I'm bringing it here. Essentially, having a list article like this isn't necessary, as there already exists a "Notable YouTube users" list in the main YouTube article, and it isn't large enough to require splitting-off. And I contend that the AfD decision made for the later Notable YouTube memes list article applies to this one as well. WarpstarRider 09:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete There ain't no such animal. OK, maybe there is, but where is the objective definition? Guy (Help!) 09:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ as mentioned by the article, these are only for those that have a wikipedia article. It is a way to consolidate them to save from having the lists interlinking in each article. Inexperienced editors continually add non-notable youtubers to the individual lists in the articles, this is one method of keeping them central and easily watchable. There is nothing wrong with any of those on the list - or there wasnt when I looked at the page earlier today, the articles are referenced etc. I see no reason to delete. Viridae^Talk 10:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- The point behind this AfD is that the an article with the exact same purpose was deleted through AfD already; this should've been picked up and deleted along with that one. Also, as I mentioned, there is a central list in the YouTube article already. The lists in the individual articles have all been removed and pointed to that section. WarpstarRider 11:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Thats a good compromise as far as I am concerned. Change to Delete. (I was going to get someone with skills to create a template to achieve the same thing as this article, equally mitigating the constant inserting of non-notables.) Viridae ^Talk 11:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WarpstarRider. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It only lists people who have been deemed notable through other means (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc). Seems perfectly fine to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, better served by categories. A list will only encourage the accumulation of unverifiable trivia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and form category because it seems they are all worthy of articles, I think Night Gyr's idea of a category would be good suitable. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- We already have Category:YouTube, and with 11 entries it doesn't seem to be overloaded, so anything youtube-related and article-worthy can go in there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Way too indiscriminate. MER-C 13:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete very small list of four people, all of whom have their own articles. Makes more sense as a category, and indeed we already have one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment (and ~~Keep~~) The list was deleted in August when it was replaced by a category. After the category was deleted, the list was restored. Since then, no one knew this existed, so it is out of date. Instead, many users have edited the individual articles of YouTube users to include lists of people (up to 15 or so I think) in the individual articles of each YouTube user with an article. This has led to constant excessive reverts as articles which are soon speedied are added then removed from each page. I was the one who pointed to this again last night, raising the awareness, and therefore opening up for the new deletion request. I had hoped that people would instead update the list and that the main article could point to this as well, leading to only one place where changes occurr. The nominator redirected all of the links to the main YouTube article specifically to the section with the list. The section was renamed shortly thereafter, which will now require changing all of the links again. It seems that a separate list article is warranted to me... (sorry if this is too much of a ramble.) --Siradia 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't realize Category:YouTube existed. I assumed after the previous category was deleted, we were out of options. I've updated items in that category. --Siradia 15:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete maintaining this would be a mess Dragomiloff 18:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. YouTube use is going to become less and less notable as time goes on. If evidence is found that George W Bush or the Pope use it, that would be notable. A list of notable people who happen to use YouTube is not. WJBscribe 20:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I find the basic premis of this list to be "People who have becomed notable because of thier interaction with YouTube." That seems reasonable. If the content is in the main article because it's small... that's fine. If it gets split into a side article due to size, that's fine too. Keep the content but keep a careful eye on it for spam. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong and Speedy Delete: per Dragomiloff, and until YouTube start confirming the copyright of videos properly, it has the potential for assisting contributory infringement through linking to copyright violating material, something WikiMedia foundation attorney Brad Patrick can confirm if you ask him. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the copyright problems of YouTube.com has to do with this debate? Should we delete "YouTube" on the same grounds? ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

- As inappropriate as I consider this page to be, your argument is entirely off base. All of the people who became youtube celebrities did so through creating original content, so links to their content are not contributing to infringement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So this list will purely be people who were non notable before using YouTube, not a list of celebs who may or may not use YouTube. In which case, if the users are notable enough to be on this list, they would be notable enough to have their own articles and therefore a category, if they aren't notable enough to have their own articles, then the list as a whole doesn't satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO so and as such requires deletion. Either way, the article shouldn't exist. If we're talking about celebs who use YouTube, I have concerns over copyright violations too, do we really want a list of Notable YouTube users comprising every celeb who has had a sex video on the site.Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Catigorize pages. This page says nothing besides their orignal pages so just makee them catagories. Cnriaczoy42 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Should have gone away with the previous deletion. Watchsmart 06:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep -only because arguments put forth so far for delete are unimpressive. Too short? It can be expanded, especially as more notable users pop up. The category exists? We have other such lists, and this article isn't just a list: it has text. Too indiscriminate? No, it says notable, and only links to Youtube with articles. Copyright issues? that's just silly: like J.S. said, unless we want to nuke Youtube as well. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Why can't we just make a category for these four. THeir is nothing that can really be said that isn't said on individual pages. Cnriaczoy42 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and Rewrite per my vote (Mister.Manticore's, actually) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable LiveJournal users. Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Cruft magnet. Truly notable individuals do not require a wikipedia article substantiating their notability. We don't have articles for "Notable Businesspeople" or "Notable Philosophers," rather Henry Ford's or Plato's notability is self-evident. The YouTube category, which already exists, suffices. Pop Secret 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics1.com

For prior discussions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics1.com (Previous Nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics1.com (2nd nomination)

This site is undeniably popular, although not in the same league as Daily Kos, ranking just outside 70,000 on Alexa while Kos is inside the 2,000 mark, but the problem I have here is that I cannot find good sources to remedy the multiple "unsourced" tags on the article. It scores well on a Google search, but this is partly the result of rampant spamming (including to Wikipedia, where it has been linked as a source for numerous rumours in biographies - last I heard blogs were not a good source for such, but that's an aside). However, it scores only four passing mentions in Google News and seven on Factiva, which also appear to be passing mentions ("according to politics1, blah", where blah is a single sentence). All the content appears to be referenced to the primary source, and there is a lot of editorialising going on. I';m certainly not averse to keeping it if we can demonstrate that credible third party sources exist for the content - i.e. substantial critical review of the site, rather than just proof of existence - and we can clean it up to be properly neutral. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete No sources, Google Link Search shows that pretty much every site linking to Politics1 does it simply as a footnote listing affiliations or listing random blogs on similar subjects. cacophony 10:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
In the first AFD discussion, Kappa pointed to where several potential sources are cited on the Politics1 web site itself. I've added citations for the originals, of a few of them, to the article for your reading pleasure. Uncle G 11:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Appreciate the work, Uncle G, it'll be interesting to see if these are judged by t'committee to be non-trivial coverage (one at least seems to rise above the level of directory-of-politics-sites). Guy (Help!) 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep It may be popular, but sources are still needed or they may be deleted especially if challenged. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Undeniably non-notable. I have several <70k Alexa sites and none of them have pages on WP. --lesalle 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. (nn blog) Maybe WP:WEB ought to be adjusted for blogs to be included to have alexa <= 5000 or something. --timecop 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete if no credible source can be found (my own webpage has a better Alexa ranking). Sam Hocevar 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete No sources, not notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete No sauce. Where is the sauce? MrMacMan 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
6 potential sources were cited in the article at the point that I commented above. I suggest that the preceding three editors read the article again, carefully this time. Uncle G 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have looked over the sources listed... The 'Politics1.com Is One of...' is large large large list of 'the best sites' and no real commentary on downsides... for example The previous 'site to checkout' isn't posted on wiki The link to ' TV and Web are poles apart' is nothing more then a sites to possibly checkout article. I checked using my colleges database. As I don't believe I'm allowed to lift text ill say that they talk about, 'www.fearthis.com', 'theonion.com', 'jeb02.com' and several local sites for Illinois political office. Its a big list of sites and doesn't really go into deeper then "Thorough and smoothly laid out"... and The other Tribune article is more of the same... infact the title says it directly -- sites you might want to checkout. Meh, not enough actual discussion about the sites dealings, views, critics and necesary indepth coverge. Weak delete? Well beforehand, yes. Now that i saw that the articles people could find about were only typical 'check this site out!' I back my delete fully. MrMacMan 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - You've omitted the Seattle Times and Broward-Palm Beach New Times articles, both of which go into detail on this web site and its founder. Uncle G 09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - It's a popular website and I value the sources added that confirm it's importance and heavy usage during political seasons. --Oakshade 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Sharkface217 05:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. nn, unsourced. -Ich (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Once again: There are 6 potential sources cited in the article. Please read the article being discussed. Uncle G 09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, cannot see why there are claims that this article is not sourced, somebody needs a case for Wikidumper? Alf photoman 15:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete pn nn, vanity, no sources. Skrewler 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete notability doesnt matter... verifiability does... if it cant be verified it needs to go. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - vanity, advertising, self-promotion and an external link. makes no sense to keep pages like this one. - Femmina 12:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above, esp. the commentary by macman. Eusebeus 12:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Kelley

Does not meet WP:NOT, is also autobiographical (and reads like spam). 2 of the links are to the author's own website (an advertising portal/on-line store), classifying them as advertisements. The Savannah cat article already mentions this person as one of the breed's founders, we don't need a separate article detailing his personal achievements or how popular his website is (none of which I can verify from a non-trivial source anyhow). Finiteyoda 09:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Also an autobiography. MER-C 13:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do Not Delete Not an autobiography and comes from 2 reliable referenced sources (TICA'S Savannah Cat Breed Section and S.I.M.B.A). Finiteyoda says there are two links to Patrick Kelley's personal website. There are none. (If someone sees them please point them out) Finiteyoda has been aware of this page for quite some time and Finiteyoda's request for deletion comes only after his/her obscurely referenced additions to the Savannah cat article where edited. Toast222 06:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

First, Toast, I am not upset about you editing my references, I kept them and even cleaned them up a little further. My request came because I had just noticed Patrick's page, and per the rules, it's not the kind of content Wikipedia hosts. Also, Patrick does own savannahcat.com and the yahoo groups linked to from that site, I assume, since the contact e-mail for both is the same. Also, it is an autobiography, even if it has referenced sources; if you follow the WP:AUTO link, you'll note the definition is when someone comes to Wikipedia and creates an article about themselves, and why we frown upon that. Finally, you may want to review Wiki policy on Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry. Your first 20 or so edits here at Wikipedia were to add links to Patrick Kelley's breeding site, darkeggs.com, and the next 15 or so to add information about Patrick Kelley in various places and removing spam cleanup tags. I highly suggest reading more at Wikipedia:Community_Portal#Departments, because many of your contributions to-date look like spam. Finiteyoda 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Finiteyoda the Parick Kelley article has ONE link to a site that is owned by him (not TWO as you accused the article of having in your request for deletion). Obviously you said "two" because you thought nobody would check. I mean come on...you have researched every nusance of this article and you are an old pro on Wikipedia. Huge difference between 1 and 2. That said, the one site in question is recongnized by the majority of us as the breed site for Savannahs. Not spam. I have contacted Patrick Kelley about this article and he says he did not write it. I certainly believe him over you because...well..you lie. However your passion for Wikipedia and the Savannah breed are obvious and if this article is deleted I'm sure you and I can work hand in hand and write a new article on Patrick Kelley (and Joyce Sroufe for that matter) that is better suited for Wikepidea.Toast222 09:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if it's one site instead of two, but it doesn't change the argument any. Also, if Patrick Kelley is not user Pfkelley, you might want to tell him that someone on Wikipedia is impersonating him. --Finiteyoda 23:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - nn/autobiography --61.114.193.19 12:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - nn/autobiography (Was not aware of this rule..my bad)Pfkelley 22:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Marathon Trilogy. Agent 86 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marathon series

Not popular series of books listed as either out of print or ranking in the 1.88 millionsths per Amazon. The titles are carried in only about a dozen libraries in the world. The author scores approx 225 unique Ghits, mainly from booksellers' sites. Ohconfucius 10:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No vote, but the article would probably make a good redirect to Marathon Trilogy - a considerably more popular series of computer games. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I thought it was books related to the story of the Marathon Trilogy which definitely would be notable, however these don't seem to be notable, i suggest the Redirect as Zeta suggested. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as unnecessary duplication of information. Also note that this section does not contribute much to the size of the article, so the argument that it is needed as split to reduce the size does not have merit. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheffield United F.C. managers

This is simply a duplication of the "managers" section on the main Sheffield United article, with no additional information ChrisTheDude 10:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 10:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose The intention is to remove it from the main article which is said to be 'too long'. roundhouse 10:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup - Remove the Managers section from the main article (which is quite long, when set out into one column) and expand the daughter article to include dates and other statistics. For a good example of this see how Manchester_City_F.C.#Notable_former_managers and List of Manchester City F.C. managers work. Qwghlm 10:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, move and cleanup, move to List of Sheffield United F.C. managers and do the rest of what Qwghlm proposes. – Elisson • T • C • 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - The main club article is the best place for this data. If the main article is too long, strip out some of the "trivia" or other stuff instead. - fchd 19:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - the main article is not too long. If this list included a brief description of the time each person spent as manager and what they achieved, it would be worth keeping (as there would not be room for that in the main article). But as it stands, it adds nothing to existing coverage of the topic elsewhere. WJBscribe 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, at least to allow a process similar to the one Qwghlm describes. If there's no improvement in a month, re-nominate. Eludium-q36 21:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - what's the information in this list?? I'm feeling like football articles are turning to be too much of statistical information and too less of really interesting content. --Angelo 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, move, expand and cleanup and change Sheffield_United_F.C.#Managerial_history to a brief 'Notable managers' section as in the Manchester City example above (which looks fine to me). roundhouse 09:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, move and cleanup, per Qwghlm. HornetMike 00:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.--Kchase T 06:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shoko Goto

NN person. And now that WP:PORNBIO is a guideline, I thought that this article deserved another AFD vote. Previous discussion can be found here. Dismas|^(talk) 10:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete it is possible this article should exist on the Japanese wikipedia but not here. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Theoretically, since all the Wikipedias have the same goal, then any genuinely notable article on one should appear on all. Confusing Manifestation 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Here we go again. Expect to see every article in the Japanese pornography category targeted for deletion because it doesn't meet American standards of notability. The Japanese and American pornography industries are different and to ignore those differences is to create cultural bias at Wikipedia. To put things in perspective, consider a Japanese pornographic superstar like Hitomi Kobayashi. "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..." [35] So, "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" fails the American test. Goto Shoko has been a major presence in the Japanese adult field since 2004. Mainstream outlet Amazon Japan currently sells 23 DVDs, 1 book and 1 VHS tape featuring this model. How many American pornographic actresses can make the same claim? In other words, within only 2 years, her output as listed at Amazon (there are adult-video only sites that will list more) has nearly tied the "Queen of Adult Video." Dekkappai 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep shoko goto easily meets at least two of the seven criterion.
1. "Performer has been a Playboy Playmate (of the Year or Month) or a Penthouse Pet (of the Year or Month), or similar titles in other major magazines." she has been featured in Bachelor magazine, a premier big-bust adult magazine in japan. Bachelor has consistently featured well-known western models like chloe vevrier and linsey dawn mckenzie, and is similar to Score in north america.
2. "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche" shoko goto has had high output in the big-bust genre of videos despite being in the business for only two years. as verified by the number of her videos on amazon japan (a mainstream outlet that does not list all of her work), as dekkappai has already demonstrated.

i must talk about a comment made earlier that the article could be in the japanese wikipedia but not here. if it is important enough to be in the japanese wiki, why is an english equivalent of it not important enough to be here? --Hexvoodoo 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep AFAIK notable enough in the Japanese porn scene. It's not acceptable to hold people from non-English-speaking nations to higher standards of notability - it's not a 'notable to Americans' or 'notable to the British' or whatever standard. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per all above (except nom). --Oakshade 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment So that we don't have to go through this again, wouldn't it be better for you, Dekkappai and Hexvoodoo, to either update the articles so that these questions of notability aren't consistently brought up or have the guideline updated to better outline who would and would not be notable enough for inclusion? The latter of those would probably be simplest. Considering not very many people outside of Asia, or possibly outside of just Japan, may know how big/established/notable/etc. Bachelor magazine is, it would probably save you a lot of headaches having to justify your keep votes. Dismas|^(talk) 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I apologize if I was a bit cranky up there, Dismas. You were probably unaware of the history behind this-- Earlier in the year, a certain editor who has expressed hostility to this subject on numerous occasions, nominated an extensive "List of Japanese Female Porn Actors" for deletion, edit-warred it down into only blue-links, claimed its function would be served by a category, and then succeeded in having it deleted. He then proceeded to begin systematically nominating for deletion every article in the remaining category. In other words, using underhanded means, he was attempting to censor Wikipedia of any meaningful coverage of the Japanese adult entertainment field. My limited Internet time has, since then, mostly been spent in re-working that list-- extensive sourcing, research, etc. It should be ready for presentation before very long. Once it is up, I fully intend to work on these articles, and make sure they're up to standard. I'll try to work on this particular one later today. If there was a discussion as to guidelines/notability standards in the pornography field, I missed it probably because I don't monitor the entire field, but just the Japanese subjects, which interest me. Regards. Dekkappai 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment Thank you for the apology and clearing that up. I was unaware of the bad faith user or whatever you want to call them. Dismas|^(talk) 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the above, and I'm also perplexed by the attitude of trying to limit Japanese articles to the Japanese wikipedia. Neier 10:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 10:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Super Mario World. It should really be a delete because no one has offered a single independent source, but given the claims of notability maybe it can be brought back with proper sourcing. ~ trialsanderrors 06:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lunar Magic

Non-notable ROM Hacking related program. Newspaper98 10:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 13:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Why did you change it from prod to AFD? The prod was about to pass, now it's going to just be dragged out longer. --GUTTERTAHAH 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I agree... this nom seems very odd. I support delete in any case. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Do not delete! I was familiar with Lunar Magic well before stumbling onto its entry, and I wish there were more entries like it. Wwjdd 01:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Super Mario World or ROM hacking. --Ixfd64 06:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Are you kidding? This is a popular well known piece of software. Why not delete every console emulator entry too? And what does the fact that it's related to ROM hacking have to do with anything?--71.229.77.97 02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep Seems notable enough, but needs more work. --Andre ✉ 21:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The article itself needs some major work, but the topic is one of the best and most notable ROM editors out there. - Joshua368 01:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep It is original and innovative. - MSTCrow 15:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, nonsense from a vandal. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zelda tetras curse

A non-existent game (Google returns no results for "Tetra's Curse"), or at best a future fan game, therefore completely non-notable and unverifiable. Author contested prod with own admission that it doesn't exist. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as even author admits it does not yet exist. JPD (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced and unverifiable crystal ballery, conflict of interest, failure of WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per first sentence of article: "non-existent game". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Bearly541 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense. Pascal.Tesson 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of (minor) bridges in Toronto

By article title, these are "minor" bridges, such as street-over-street overpasses. No notability established, no outside sources. Wikipedia is NOT a road map or travel guide. Serpent's Choice 11:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. We don't need to list all the bridges in the world. JPD (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 13:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DrKiernan 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non notable database cruft. Edison 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per what wikipedia isn't. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable and who cares? --Mig ^(Talk) 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - complete pointless. -- Whpq 18:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Wow, the title itself admits there are not notable! WJBscribe 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not notable. Bearly541 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nukebidding

Appears to be a neologism; I can't find any reference on Google outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Nothing at all on Google Groups. Blorg 11:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Maybe the description is too vague, but isn't this just the already well-known practice of sniping? Certainly appears to be a protologism with no apparent usage outside of Wikipedia and mirrors. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as neologism. JPD (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - nn neologism. MER-C 13:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - fully agree with the nominator. This term doesn't even exist outside of Wikipedia. Jayden54 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - does not appear to be a term in general use and as noted by Matticus, article describes auction sniping.
Speedy Delete. Was this in retaliation of losing a bid on eBay? Bearly541 23:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Superdelete, as not even a notable neologism. All article on google appear to be linking to WP; the guy may have may the term up. -Patstuart^talk|edits 13:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete pointless. FirefoxMan 22:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Auction sniping, which is the phrase usually used for the activity described in the article. No content worth salvaging. Tubezone 10:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Coment - do we really want to redirect for a term that doesn't exist? -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well, having a redirect might dissuade someone from trying to recreate the article. Also, I've seen the term used, although the person using it probably made it up off the cuff. Tubezone 08:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nonconsensuism (although categorizing might make sense, since it's unannotated). ~ trialsanderrors 06:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Isms

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This expansive unreferenced list of unexplained terms is one of the most dictionary-esque of the English word lists currently in mainspace, but it is not alone. Seeking to avoid the hazards of bundling, more may be listed pending the results of this discussion once it is possible to gauge consensus about where dictionaries stop and encyclopedias begin in this context. Serpent's Choice 11:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, although I'm even sure this is strictly a dictionary-related issue, since the terms aren't even defined. I see it as a collection of words which are related etymologically but not in any other more meaningful way. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary or delete. Either way, it doesn't belong here. MER-C 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete (or Transwiki) - per WP:NOT since Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a collection of things. Jayden54 14:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete very "dictionary-esque" indeed. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Listcruft. (aeropagitica) 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT a random collection of information Dragomiloff 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

- Keep Its not random at all, its a very tight category and very useful for navigation. Its not a dictionary entry at all, its a navigation aide. This is part of the project on vocabulary and phonology under this category: Category:Suffixes Just like -itis and -phobia. This is a navigation aide to existing Wikipedia entries not covered by a category. The article also appears in the Finnish and Swedish Wikipedia: fi:Luettelo ismeistä sv:Lista över ismer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I see no point to this list and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Besides imagine the endless other lists- words that end in -tion -ive etc. Then the same in other languages... One a lighter (and slightly juvenille) note, I never thought I would see the following sentence used in a near-encyclopedic manner: "This list should not include...jism". Brilliant! WJBscribe 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per Big Haz. Indiscriminate list (though, it's somehow discriminate enough to declare which words not to include) of similar words. And, if for no other reason, per Big Haz's use of the $10.00 word "etymologically." Wavy G 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- You don't know how close I came to saying "entomologically" to start with :) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete An -ism can potentially be formed from any adjective. OBriain 04:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment True but not all would be worthy of an article or be found in a Google search. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps lists of -tion(s), -ive(s), and ally(s) are in order because there are some of those sets that are worthy of articles? :P OBriain 06:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - This is a very useful navigation aid, actually. Isms are often key terms in broader subjects, such as philosophy, medicine, politics, etc. And because these subjects are often very scholastic or esoteric in nature, remembering these terms can be very difficult. So what does one do when he can't quite remember an ism? He tries to look it up. Unfortunately, entering "ism" into Wikipedia's search box only turns up entries in which ism is separated by a space or punctuation mark; it does not return unpunctuated words in which "ism" is part of the spelling. Powers of recognition are much stronger than powers of recall, so being able to look at a list like this would be valuable because the reader may recognize the term he has forgotten once he sees it, thereby curing him of the dreadful tip of the tongue phenomenon. Don't you just hate when that happens? It's like right there, but you just can't quite think of the word. This is especially stressful if it is a subject you need to learn more about for a school or work assignment. This type of list is a Godsend for people suffering from this affliction, and we all do, from time to time. And because the entries are linked, you can check to see if you've recognized the term correctly by clicking on the link and reading its introduction. It's a harmless list which has at least one good use, so there's no harm in keeping it around. And who knows, someone may come up with ways to improve this list in the future, such as sorting it by type of ism. Just some ideas. I hope these help. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 07:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Deleteism per Obriaianism. Dannism Lilithbornism 22:41, 7 Decemberism 2006 (UTCism)
Keep- at least in my opinion. This has a lot of info I can't get anywhere else (right now I'm using it to make some significant additions to the List of ideologies named after people), and if I lose it, I won't be able to add to some lists.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.172.233.90 (talk • contribs)
Keep A useful navigarional tool. `'mikkanarxi 04:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
keep I'm tired of saying this yet once more, but lists that people use and can maintain should be kept. Why should anyone else want to remove them? DGG 08:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Diplomacy

It fails under notability guidelines and has been tagged as such since august. During this time, few noteworthy edits have been made, and the article remains in the same state. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Notability not established. JPD (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom; no reliable sources. That the game's designers are only identified by first name is not a good sign. JChap2007 14:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no claim to meet notability guidelines, no independent sources. Google search shows self-generated material and forum posts, but no coverage by major publications; outside hits appear (based on identical or near-identical text) to be WP mirrors. Topic has no relation to Diplomacy (game). Barno 18:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Along with this should SWDiplomacy be deleted, I suppose. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Note that a merge of this does not make sense as the article contained the following statement:

Electrokinesis in fiction bears little or no relation to its factual namesake.

—Doug Bell ^talk 11:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electrokinesis in fiction

Neologism. Article has been criticized heavily for its poor content, degenerating to "electrokinesis in the role-playing game GURPS", which is totally not notable. It's just very silly, and it exists only due to a persistent wish to have it exist. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redict - The Electrokinesis article is really short, so there might as well be a separate section for Electrokinesis in fiction, and not a whole separate article. Jayden54 14:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete a neologism of no particular relevance to the factual construct, references do not seem to be reliable sources, I see no credible evidence that this term is used in the fictional universes to which the article refers. If that can be fixed, fine, but otherwise it has to go. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect Could be placed (as said by MER-C) in the Electrokinesis article due to the current article's shortness. Jamesbuc
Keep if it can be sourced, otherwise, Delete. Strongly oppose merging to Electrokinesis. Note that a rather lengthy discussion regarding this is at Talk:-kinesis (including my reasons for opposing the merger). This is part of an ongoing attempt to reverse an unfortunate addition of neologisms in List of comic book superpowers. (See discussion at Talk:List of comic book superpowers/Archive 4#Neologisms.) - jc37 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC) [Doesn't look like it will be further sourced. - jc37 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)]
Delete or Merge into Electrokinesis per Jayden 54 and my comments at Talk:-kinesis. CovenantD 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and neologism policy. The term electrokinesis is used in almost none of the fiction that has been referred (which you don't see presently because I previously deleted most of it, although some people keep wanting to reinsert the list of electro-powered characters). Therefore, this is a simple infliction of a neologism in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The use of it to refer to a superpower has nothing to do with the scientific use of the word, so this is effectively a homynym and still neologism. Doczilla 08:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to The X Factor UK series 2, although it could turn into a delete and redirect if it's being brought back without added notability. ~ trialsanderrors 07:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chenai Zinyuku

This page seems to be extremely fancrufty and pointless. Much of the information that has been stated here is either unsourced or can be found out at the X-Factor series 2 page. There is also mention of a record deal and a single to come out but so far there has been no press releases saying so or any records released Jamesbuc

Delete - nn losing reality TV contest, plenty of precedent. Unreferenced. MER-C 13:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Hasn't really done anything notable or release any top hits or albums, so delete. Jayden54 14:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and then redirect to The X Factor UK series 2. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite, isn't a terrible subject, just a terrible article. м info 04:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite, Agreed - bad article, but worth keeping. She was an interesting contestant and I think its more than likely that she will have future releases domcaz 14:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Isnt that just Crystal Balling? Jamesbuc

Merge It'd be a shame to lose this information. It should be cut down in size and merged with the main X Factor article. Triangle e 22:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Most of the infomation enclosed is already in The X Factor UK series 2. Jamesbuc

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as an unsourced and unsubstantiated attack upon an institution. This article can be recreated if verifiable and reliable sources can be provided for any claims made. (aeropagitica) 17:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Alice Hospital

I tried to find third party, reputable sources, and it seems as if the hospital at least exists: [36]. However, I couldn't find anything to verify the salacious elements of the article that would make it notable. Without them, it's just another former hospital. It could be, though, that my Google skills are just not what the used to be. :) Gzkn 13:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - The events that are described in the article are real I think, because I found several sources to back up these claims, e.g. [37], [38] and [39]. Jayden54 14:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as libel toward hospital staff, in that it makes completely unsourced claims that staff physically abused and raped children who were patients. This is a gross violation of WP:BLP. I would have blanked the article except that it is up for deletion. Such claims must be carefully sourced to multiple reliable, verifiable, and independent sources. This article has been around for 6 weeks or so without any references. I don't know if the crimes claimed occurred as described. If someone cares to find newspapers or court records substantiating abuses, a new article could be created, or the present one could be trashed and a new one written. The title should be changed to the actual name of the hospital. Citations should be referenced in the article, not listed here. The cites may not be to lurid blogs telling of "screams during ECT torture." They might yell beforehand, but people are knocked out by electroconvulsive therapy. The actual NZ papers or court records should be carefully cited, not the selective clips from the blog in the first link found by Jayden54. The second link does mention payouts to former patients. The third link I could not get to open. Edison 15:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Goals Institute

A small and now defunct extreme-right Tory political group. Google excluding Wikipedia and forums yields about 40 unique hits, and that includes the Wikitruth version of the Gregory Lauder-Frost article we deleted. Being defunct since the early 90s there is nothing on Google News, also nothing on Factiva, one mention in JSTOR (and that only because Clive Derby-Lewis is mentioned in tangentially in an article in the Journal of Southern African Studies, and he was a patron of WGI - that is the extent of the mention). The few external sources cited are not about WGI but about Derby-Lewis. The entire article appears to be original research, puff and vanispamcruftisement, and my review of the sources I was going to use to rewrite this abysmally biased and excessive article leads me to believe that (a) the are no real sources and (b) even if there were the group probably falls below the notability threshold. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, article seems to cite plenty of sources, just not all online ones. This is not surprising for a defunct late 80s/early 90s group. Long list of contributors and certainly doesn't seem like a puff piece to me, one of the online source links that is there is to a UNHCR document listing the Institute as an "impediment" to the elimination of racial discrimination in South Africa. -- Blorg 22:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: is your point that the article is completely negative about the group? -- Blorg 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep This group had several prominent members. Wikipedia will not be improved by deleting this article. Ground Zero | t 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I can't imagine there would be many unique hits now, but the WGI was a prominent organization at one time. CJCurrie 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep influential group with some rather prominent members. Being defunct is no grounds for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. NeoJustin 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morten westermann

Delete Looks like a vanity page, but is not notable per biographical policy Janarius 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non notable, as I can't find anything noteworthy about this person on Google at all. Jayden54 14:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
speedy delete - non notable. Wrong case!. Cate | _Talk 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete no notability. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete db-bio. Danny Lilithborne 22:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, author requests deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eternity (game)

A free game thats currently in development, it doesn't get less notable really. Zero assertions of notability, no reliable third-party sources, no media coverage, fails WP:NOT a crystalball, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V, WP:N, and the first section reads like an advertisement (WP:NOT again). The introduction even says they don't know what the game is going to be notable for yet! (They say 'probably it's license') The Kinslayer 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 14:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
delete as in-development hobby project. — brighterorange (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Needs clean up, not deletion. WP:NOTCVG is still just a proposal, not policy, notability is difficult for FOSS game projects. In regards to reading like an ad, there are a lot of game articles that read like an ad, Freelancer is a prime example. --MegaBurn 20:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I have no idea where you keep getting WP:NOTCVG from. No one else is referencing it. We're more concerned about the ACTUAL policies this article doesn't meet, as stated in the nomination. The Kinslayer 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment, Its the proposed notability policy for games, until its finalized notability should be left out of game related AFD debates. WP:SOFTWARE is also just a proposal, not policy, and should not be used for a AFD grounds either. Beyond that, this is a game under development, weak notability should be expected. --MegaBurn 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment I know it's a proposed policy, so does everyone else. That's why absolutely no-one else has made any reference to it and is instead sticking to the actual Wiki policies this article fails. I ask you again: Where are you getting WP:NOTCVG from when absolutely no-one is using it as a reason for deletion? The Kinslayer 09:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Megaburn, you are ignoring the parts about WP:V and WP:RS. No media coverage, no third-party sources, only the site itself listed as a source. This does not meet any standard of notability. WP is not for crystal ballery. Hbdragon88 05:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, sorry, it was a weak attempt to save the article. Its Openlancer's sister project so I felt obligated to say something to defend it. Odd though, out of about 200 community members no one else replied to this or the Openlancer AFD debates. I can say both articles will return in a few months, after these projects release demos and get some news coverage. --MegaBurn 06:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per original nom which covers it very nicely. Nashville Monkey 09:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep In order to comply with the above mentioned wikipedia policies, I the admin/webmaster/designer of the project and original author have adjusted the wording away from speculation to current goals. Advertisement is irrelevant, there are no argumentative devices, only facts. --Casswp06 15:46, 9 December 2006 (GMT)
Delete I author have decided there is no real point to keeping this entry, it isn't important and has no bearing on how the project will do. I hereby request it's deleted now as to not waste any more of anyone's time. --Casswp06 22:48, 11 December 2006 (AEST)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unsourced. I'm quite certain this magazine is notable as it comes up first in a Google search for drum, but the article as is doesn't even assert notability. This means there is no prejudice against creation of a sourced article on the magazine. ~ trialsanderrors 08:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drum! Magazine

Almost no information has been put into this article. All I can get is that there is a magazine that currently exists, that caters to drummers. I don't think that this article would be going anywhere seeing that it was tagged with importance since June. Also, the only reference there is in the article is the magazine's web site. The Wikipedia article comes up 4th when you google it. I say Delete. Diez2 14:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete I see little reson to keep it here unless more infomation is discovered on it. Jamesbuc
Delete - Unless serious content is added. Very little or no information of use. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - if it turns out this is a notable publication and someone wants to write a proper article on it, they would be free to start a new article. WJBscribe 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable magazine found at just every sizable bookstore (Barnes & Noble, Borders, etc.), probably the biggest percussion magazine worldwide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Stong Keep per Andrew Lenahan. Very important musicians magazine. Every drummer has had or currently has a copy of this. --Oakshade 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment If so why isnt there more infomation on the subject on the wiki page? Jamesbuc

Same answer for alot of stubs. Sometimes editors very familiar very the subjects haven't gotten around to expanding. Recently I saved the article for very popular novelist Anne Stuart from beeing speedied. At the time it was only one sentence [40]. Can't really explain it, but it was a notable subject that hardly had any info written about it. --Oakshade 07:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes but we are saying that unless more infomation is placed down about the magazine it will more than likely be deleted. Also even in the article there is a comment that is a little POV ('Drum features many intresting sections' is a POV). If the article is going to stay then it should be cleaned up and given more infomation! Jamesbuc

Calm down. No need to yell. --Oakshade 08:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooops sorry about that. I went OTT then but do you see where I am getting at? Jamesbuc

I'm not finding the magazine's history anywhere on the net nor any article about the magazine (magazines or newspapers writing about other magazines is not common), but I know it's notable. It's been the primary periodical for dummers for decades. Go into any Barnes & Noble or Borders and you'll see it. If this gets deleted because nobody with knowledge of its specific history adds information and if as of now it doesn't follow strict WP:CORP guildlines, then we're letting a notable entity get deleted. --Oakshade 16:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is so noticable than shouldnt there be more content about it on the web? Jamesbuc

I don't know. Like I said, magazines and newspapers writing about other magazines is not common. If that's the barameter for inclusion, then we're letting something notable get deleted. --Oakshade 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It may have been referenced, but as you say that you dont know means there isnt much evidence of any infomation. If there was even a picture it could stand on better grounds than it is at this current moment. Jamesbuc

I suppose I can hack one of the covers from the website [41] and it will be up for a few days before it gets deleted for copywrite violations, but I don't want to operate in that way. --Oakshade 21:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Going against what I like doing, I went ahead and grabbed a cover image using Fair Use licensing. It might get deleted. --Oakshade 08:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 16:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monster (Peretti film)

Planned film version of Monster (novel) by Frank E. Peretti, which is being written and directed by the author. Peretti is currently working on a script. Can't find any references online. Currently, the article is a one-line intro plus a copy-and-paste of the plot synopsis from the article on the book. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Vary | Talk 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - for the reasons given. This is pure speculation. --Orange Mike 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I'd vote to keep it because it IS true stuff that can be verified on Frank Peretti's website, but I'll let it go if I may create a new article closer to when the film will come out. Graphic8189
Delete: Crystalbollocks at the moment. If the script isn't finished and the film isn't actually in production, it may never see the light of day. And the title is wrong, it would need to be Monster (2008 film). Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, though a bit of the content can go into the book article. Graphic8189 - you may want to move this to user space and you can recreate the article if the project comes to fruition and gets independent coverage. -Kubigula (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, with several suggestions to consider renaming to an alternate title. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fast cars

This article seems unencyclopedic to me. It just talks about various cars that were the fastest in their respective eras. TomTheHand 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - I find it encyclopedic. It shows the progress of cars techniques. Article could be improved (and written in a more encyclopedic manner). Merge to History of the automobile will create a to big article, so I vote to keep it. - Cate | _Talk 15:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I agree that the article has merit. It might need a restructuring, but it should be kept around to allow that should someone see fit. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment This article is something of a magnet for linkspam. Richard W.M. Jones 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename to Fastest production car or something similar. Much has been written about the topic and making a good article out of this wouldn't be too hard. To start with, the first paragraph could go into more detail about what its criteria are for whether something is "production" or not. Recury 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Needs some work, but definitely encyclopedic. A rename wouldn't be out of bounds. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 18:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Fast cars might look better in the shade, but the title is the only problem with this article. I'd suggest a few, but an auto-enthusiast must be able to come up with a better title. Agent 86 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename If we want to keep this information, the article needs to have a different, more encyclopedic name though I have no specific suggestions. --The Way 07:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Mergewith land speed record perhaps. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Iiyiyiah have a feeling that this belongs... I mean Keep per Agent 86. Danny Lilithborne 22:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
keep I'm tired of saying this yet once more, but list-like articles that people use and can maintain should be kept. Why should anyone else want to remove them? DGG 08:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. "Little to nothing is known of the history of this religion." Well, when you find something, call us. NawlinWiki 16:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sykklism

Original research on a unknown religion, can't be verified on web and has a catch-22 on verifiability if you read the article Janarius 15:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, either a hoax or not verifiable. The article itself claims the latter. Pan Dan 15:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Fails WP:V. Kafziel ^Talk 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete lame hoax religion where murder is either not punishable, punishable by jail, or punishable by "unreincarnation" depending on which of the three conflicting sentences at the end you like best. The article says it all: "none of this information has ever been proven" Exactly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Accidental Centaurs

Fails to assert any form of notability that would qualify it under WP:WEB. I see that it's been published, but I'm not sure if that's self-published or not. Brad Beattie (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Notability could have been achieved through consistent scheduling of posting and update in order to avoid alienation of readers.

Delete per nom. The Fox Man of Fire 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No coverage of subject by multiple, reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. Only 56 unique non-Wikipedia GHits; none sufficient. -- Satori Son 05:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 02:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Heroes

Redundant with List of characters in Heroes. Should not be a redirect, because a) there are many lists of other types of heroes on Wikipedia (such as List of superheroines or List of Greek mythological figures) and b) the content should not be kept in history as some sort of hidden repository of non-notable information to be accessed, updated, and hidden again. [42] [43] Finally, and least importantly, the capitalization of the title is incorrect. Kafziel ^Talk 15:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete: redundant. However I would suggest checking with the page creator before deleting to see if perhaps this shouldn't be userfied instead in case this was a temp or attempt to revise/improve the existing List of characters in Heroes article that escaped into article space. 23skidoo 17:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've tried discussing it with him at length. From what I can tell, he feels there should be two articles. Oddly enough (since he has quite a few edits) he doesn't really seem to understand our notability criteria, WP:NOT, or, in fact, most of what I've been saying. Not sure what else I can do to explain the situation. Anyone else want to try? Kafziel ^Talk 17:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete but don't redirect. Disambig. page needed. Someone typing this could be looking for: List of characters in Heroes, List of superheroes, or could be looking for a list of real people who have been noted for their heroism. WJBscribe 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be no redirect as there are many different uses for "hero" and many different lists associated with them. The first sentence of the nom is what I meant to say; the last sentence wasn't supposed to be left in, and I have removed it. A disambiguation page might be a good idea, though. Kafziel ^Talk 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
So, "delete and then recreate (with proper capitalization) as dab page?" I'll support that. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Their is already a templete to link these articles to gether. I don't see why a list is needed that supplies just name and powers. Cnriaczoy42 22:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename to "The List (Heroes)", make it about "The List" from the show. Level 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no Redirect per WJBscribe. The history *has* to be nuked. Danny Lilithborne 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename i agree with Level and that this is the list that was on mohinder's computer and it should have it's own page because it's a long list and we see more of the list in every episode so i agree to rename it. LeafGreen Ranger 11:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- What makes the list itself notable enough to require its own article apart from the main article about the show and the list of characters we already have? Kafziel ^Talk 13:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: also, what's with the over capitalization? ""list" should be lower case. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment: I didn't know i was over capitalization, also i would like it if we rename the page and get everyone's option and also we'll need this list because of the new story arc "are you on the list" since the the list is a new story arc we need this to know who is on the listLeafGreen Ranger 11:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)LeafGreen Ranger 11:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    - No we don't; this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. There are plenty of other websites that will have that sort of information. Kafziel ^Talk 14:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Comment: While the list is not notable at this time when the story plays out in the coming year it is likely to become notable and there may be reason to recreate it at that time however as of now it probably falls under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stardust8212 15:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: only non-delete votes are from the creator of the page and a brand-new user who hasn't done anything since !voting here. Kafziel ^Talk 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Even the show itself doesn't present the contents of the list as being important enough to show it to viewers for a long enough time for them to read it. Primogen 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Kaf, this actually isn't a "vote". We're all showing sound reasoning and concensus to delete. Two people—assuming good faith here—expressing different opinions with poor reasoning don't trump that, even if sockpuppetry is involved. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I know it's not a vote, but see my fourth rule. Kafziel ^Talk 01:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The insinuations are kind of insulting, but oh well. If it was my suggestions that was the over capitalization, it is because I copied the name from The List (My Name Is Earl). I wanted to keep this because it was the most complete I had found. It defiantly needed improvements though, I have a copy now, so whatever. Level 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  - In general, unless something (a name) is capitalized by the creator, it shouldn't be capitalized, especially if it uses common words. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Battlefield 1942 mods (3rd nomination)

Indiscriminate information (WP:NOT), Most of these mods are no longer in existence, some are non-notable and the 5-6 that ARE notable already have their own article (indeed, I'm sure one mod is listed in 3 places on the list!) WP:NOT an online directory or repository of links. If a mod isn't notable enough to have it's own article on Wikipedia, then why is it notable enough to be included on a list in Wikipedia? It should also be deleted on the precedent of List of Half-Life mods and List of Half-Life 2 mods which have been deleted recently also.The Kinslayer 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous nominations: 1st 2nd
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 15:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the arguments for previous nominations were largely refuted. Millions of people have played these mods, BF1942 has had millions of players, and has one of largest most notable modding communities in the history of gaming. Its like deleting an entire cultural movement. Bfelite 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Most of the keep comments in the previous AfDs seemed to be WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IKNOWIT, or WP:INCLUSIONCRITERIADONTAPPLY. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Gamecruft, and a how-to guide (no, not a strategy guide per se, but if you want to mod CPTGbr 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)the game itself this article is intended to tell you "how to" do that). Kafziel ^Talk 15:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment I completely disagree that this is a how-to guide. Where do you see that? The scare quotes make it seem like you don't even believe what you're saying. — brighterorange (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep a notable topic for a notable game. By the way, "Gamecruft" is not a deletion criteria, and if this article is a how-to guide then so is List of Linux distributions. TomTheHand 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Retort - Your right, but WP:NOT and WP:N ARE, and this article fails them. Battlefield is notable and it has an article. 98% of this list is NOT notable, and seeing as how nearly all of them are dead, they are unlikely to get notable either. 4 of the notable ones are different versions of the same mod, all done by the same company. I would love to hear why you think each and every game should be on this list, or why the list itself is notable enough for inclusion. Or were you not thinking in that much detail when you say it's a notable subject? The Kinslayer 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - List of Linux distributions doesn't go into nearly as much detail as this article does. No big chart describing every function of every distribution. But that's basically just a pokemon argument anyway; just because the Linux page hasn't been deleted (though it is marked as needing cleanup and reading like an advertisement) doesn't mean this one can't be. Kafziel ^Talk 16:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Commment This list is also important in the historical sense, for some years now. Just like many 1980s era games are rarely played, but important part of computer history. Bfelite 20:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Reply Prove it. The Kinslayer 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
keep per previous failed nominations. "listcruft" is just as invalid a deletion criterion as WP:ILIKEIT is for a keeping. Not indiscriminate information. List could be culled to remove non-notable entries (like probably the whole section on unreleased mods), but BF1942 is a huge game and that makes its modding scene important enough to me. Should be sourceable from primary sources (the mods themselves) and gaming literature. — brighterorange (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Your right. It should be sourcable, but guess what, after TWO AfDs, there are still no sources to establish to notability of these mods. You'd have thought after two AfDs they might have considered it an important issue. What makes you think that this article being kept after a third AfD will make those sources appear? The Kinslayer 16:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - This is going to end up like the GNAA deletion. "It should be kept, because THIS AfD is going to produce sources, if you only let it be kept!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - comment Sources should be added, but AFD is not the proper venue for that. Not currently having sources (as opposed to being unverifiable) is not a deletion criterion. — brighterorange (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    - If sources exist, then why have they not been added after two AfDs? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Because, like with any article, finding sources is a tedious process and there is a shortage of editors who go through Wikipedia and perform tedious tasks. Just see Category:Wikipedia backlog! (Most Wikipedia articles are not currently sourced!) It is important that we find sources, but AFD is not cleanup, and the purpose of AFD is not "find sources now or delete." — brighterorange (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        But people MUST have complained about lack of sources. It would be in the keep !voters' best interests to provide sources. Thus, I don't think there ARE any. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        - I'll repost this from further down the discussion because it's relevant here too: "And yet, it's been kept twice and completely failed to be cleaned up. Unless your goingh to do it yourself, it's not going to happen. You all say 'Keep and clean up' yet none of you ever have any intention of actually being one of the people to clean up the article. It hasn't been cleaned up after TWO AfDs. It had it's chance, now it should be got rid of." The Kinslayer 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        I appreciate your position, but disagree with it. There is simply a shortage of people willing to do tedious cleanup work; just because something is not done now does not mean it will not or can not be done later. — brighterorange (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- For Reference - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Half-Life mods The Kinslayer 16:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The notable mods already have their own articles, and as it is currently, the article contains way too much speculation about "unreleased" mods. This might be appropriate for a gaming wiki or a BF1942 site, but I'm not convinced it warrants its own article. --Alan Au 17:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment While every battle in say, world war 2 is not notable for a 'pedia' that limits its scope like wikipedia, a listing of all the battle could easily be. This allows the few battles which had articles to be put in perspective in the pedia. In the same way, while most of these mods may not have articles, they provide the encylopedic context for the ones that do. Bfelite 22:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - However, there isn't a list of battle avoided in WW2, nor is there a list of ww2 battles there are nearly done. Nor is there a list of ww2 battles that have been cancelled or could have happened if something had changed. Yet this list contains games that can be clumsely put into those groups (I say clumsily due to the poor comparison of WW2 and computer game mods). And before some smart-ass say 'well clean up all the dead/cnacelled etc mods' I'm going to say 'I'm not doing it' Polcies compel people wishing to see an article kept to clean it up. After 2 AfDs it wasn't cleaned up. We are what, 5-6 days, into this AfD and no-one has touched it. You (as in the people saying keep) aren't planning to do the work, so what the hell make you think anyone else will? The Kinslayer 09:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Alan Au. —Wrathchild

^(talk) 18:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

- Comment comment at Alan Au. Bfelite 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment comment at Bfelite. The Kinslayer 09:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, looks like a useful resource but seriously needs cleanup, not deletion. Notability of games should extend to their mods. --MegaBurn 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Wikipedia is not a game manual ! Tulkolahten 22:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Umm... what in this article reads like a manual? I would love for you to tell us and not only state "Wikipedia is not a game manual !" Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment - I agree with Havok here, what has an instruction manual got to do with a list of mods? At least take the time to look at the damn article before making comments that are just gonna hurt the delete side the debate. The Kinslayer 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment it sounds like it - like a game manual, list of modes fails WP:NOTE I think. So I still insist on my previous vote. Tulkolahten 10:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Comment Exactly what sounds like a game manual? Do you even understand what a game manual is? Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        Comment calm down Havok, immediately. I do not care if you like this game or not. You read my opinion that it sounds like a game manual. Do you even understand what an opinion is ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        Comment Yes, I know what an opinion is. And my opinion is that your reason for voting delete is extremely flawed. And when was I not calm? Havok (T/C/e/c) 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Alan Au. TJ Spyke 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I purged the external links from the article some time ago. I don't have an opinion in this article, but as it is now, it is a serious magnet for spam. Many of the projects are just starting or already abandoned. Unless there is a kind of "rule" to separate those mods that are allowed in the list from those that are not, the list will only become worse. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment my comment at Alan Au. Bfelite 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment comment at Bfelite. The Kinslayer 09:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment my comment at nom. Bfelite 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - - - Comment comment at Bfelite. The Kinslayer 09:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Needs heavy cleanup, as well as references. Other then that, a useful list as stated above. Dead and "coming soon" mods that are non-notable could also be removed, but the list of mods that are in circulation should be kept. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup - per Havok above, and per previous nominations. The Transhumanist 09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- And yet, it's been kept twice and completely failed to be cleaned up. Unless your goingh to do it yourself, it's not going to happen. You all say 'Keep and clean up' yet none of you ever have any intention of actually being one of the people to clean up the article. It hasn't been cleaned up after TWO AfDs. It had it's chance, now it should be got rid of. The Kinslayer 10:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment Why not help clean it up then? I could help clean it up, but seeing as I have no knowledge of Battlefield 1942, my cleanup would have to be the look of the article, not content. Havok (T/C/e/c) 12:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Simple, I don't think the article should be kept. I'm not helping clean up an article I think should be deleted, and the policies compel people wishing to keep it to do so, not people who think it should be deleted. I stand by my statement that in six months time, this article wont have changed, save maybe more mods dying. It certainly hasn't changed significantly enough in the last six months since the previous AfD. The Kinslayer 12:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Comment Understandable. I'll try and clean it up when I have time to. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The article has undergone some cleanup since those AFD. Not being cleaned up fast enough is not listed under the reasons for deletion either. Bfelite 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Pointless page that hardly seems encyclopedic. Debaser23 12:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment- the largest number of total conversions for any game is not only highly notable, but important to both video games, the modding community, and culture in general. Bfelite 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Find me news article to back that up and then we'll talk. The Kinslayer 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Numerous mods have been featured in industry magazines, and recieved awards. Unfortunely ref/sources to "real" articles for many of these mods were deleted when the individual articles were deleted of the wiki. If your familiar with gaming magazines you can find articles at the library, but they are not usually available to link to. Looking around I found this ([44]) a PC Gamer magazine October 2005 review of a smaller 1942 mods. More popular ones like Eve of Destruction won PC Gamer best mod of the year. Forgotten Hope was reviewed on Tech TV as another example. Bfelite 22:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Contains dozens of highly notable games featured magazines, game sites, and thousands of google hits. It has immense encyclopedic value as a record of of dozens of notable 1942 modes, and as a wider historical value of the rise of mods as historical, cultural, and social event. Bfelite 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge only the most notable information with Battlefield 1942. Noclip 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Andre (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The impact of the largest modding community of its time with mods played by millions is notable, and specific. Bfelite 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but needs cleanup. The argument that "If a mod isn't notable enough to have it's own article on Wikipedia, then why is it notable enough to be included on a list in Wikipedia?" is flawed. There is nothing wrong with lists including things that aren't notable enough for its own article. VegaDark 22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but clean up. I still feel that mod lists aren't directories, and usually are important to show impact or popularity of a game. As well, they are also useful. Re edit so only the most notable mods are talked about. CPTGbr 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I wish people wouldn't keep renominating articles that have only had a thorough AfD a few months ago. An item does not need the same degree of notability to be included in a list as it does to merit its own article. It is the topic of the list that needs the notability, not all of the individual constituents. The individual items are not indiscriminate if it is decided that the subject is of worth. Tyrenius 01:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. God, again? //Halibu tt 08:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nom. If one list is not good enought to be here and gets deleted not because of being Half-Life but for being a list then following the same logic all similar lists should be also deleted. Snewerl 14:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Since the article has been sent to AFD two days ago, there have been no attempts at making it encyclopedic. "Keep and clean up" is nice, but unless you do it yourself, it is not done by others. -- ReyBrujo 17:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per CPTGbr and others. --- RockMFR 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Here is anarticle with a good example of how mods should be listed: Command & Conquer: Generals (and even in this case I think most of the mods need to be ditched.) The Kinslayer 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Although I cannot back it up with evidence, the mods as a whole have probably affected the real-world to a degree. Things like PC gaming magazines are the places to look for reliable references. If this was about a singular mod, it would be a strong delete. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and clean up the article, I see no valid rationale for deletion presented other than "i dont like it so it should go" which we all know doesnt pass muster. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete ~~add the notable ones to Battlefield 1942 mods. Koweja 22:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)~~

I was going to go ahead and add them to the category, but it turns out only two articles qualified. The rest of the links either redirected to another mod, were for completely different games, and in one case not related to gaming at all. Just delete. Koweja 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Would someone like to explain why this article, which supposedly can just be cleaned up, has not been cleaned up in the six months since the first AfD? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Because people who have absolutely no intention of doing the work themselves say 'keep and clean-up' and disappear, leaving us with this mess of an article yet again. The Kinslayer 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just because it may need cleaning up and has not been is not a reason for deletion of the entire topic. Tyrenius 23:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Here's an idea: how about people get together and create a wiki specifically created for mods? I know that some people may argue that ModDB is already out there, but frankly ModDB is just not as user-friendly as wikis are, and often has pitifully little information about each mod. By making an openly editable wiki just for mods, both the PC gaming aficionados and the super-psycho-relevance-police (jk, guys) can be happy. Just a thought. Chef Brian 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- EDIT: I'd like to add very quickly that if this article survives I have to question why exactly the Half-Life mods were deleted by such strong public opinion. Sounds like favoritism to me. Chef Brian 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 02:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mubashir Zaidi

NN Pakistani journalist. The article is autobiographical voldemortuet 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Vote changed to Neutral (see discussion below). ~~'Not only a Los Angeles Times and BBC News reporter, but he appears to have been the subject of notable persacution of journalists in Pakistan.[45][46]~~ --Oakshade 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Does being a reporter for BBC News and LA Times assert notability (unless there is a notable achievement)? The persecution claim does account for a case of notability. There are about 2000 Ghits for the search "Mubashir Zaidi". Many include news reports written by the subject of the article himself which are available online. The links related to persecution claims, come from a single incident reported in news stories which was not even mentioned in the article. The article is started and mainly contributed by the user with the same name as the subject of the article. voldemortuet 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a reporter for major news outlets such as those, not to mention a producer for a major network in one of the most populous countries on earth, is a major assertion of notablility. Of course we'll find articles written by the subject because he's a reporter who write articles. Yes, it appears that the subject might have written this article himself, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable. And the persecution claim orginates from Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, which is independent of this person. --Oakshade 23:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll regard a journalist from these outlets notable only if he/she has got some notable achievements. Although autobiography doesn't account for deletion but it does show conflict of interest. The main notability about the subject (to which I agree)is the persecution incident which is perhaps one of the few things about the article that are verifiable. Although persecution claim is a part of a long series of events related to persecution of journalists in Pakistan[47][48]. Unless reliable sources are found to validate the whole article, it remains a potential candidate for deletion. As an alternative I suggest to stub the article focussing on the subject as a target of persecution in Pakistan till the whole contents in the article are verified and sourced. I would also like to hear from some experienced wikipedian on the notability of journalists. voldemortuet 16:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This touches on an inherent problem with the recent attempted deletions of journalists. It's ironic that we use articles from The Los Angeles Times and BBC News as examples of published works from reliable sources that establish notability, yet a person who actually writes those published works is considered not-notable to some people. --Oakshade 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This Mubashir Zaidi has no relation with the reporter of Los Angeles Times. That's why BBC and Los Angeles Times references are irrelevent.

The editor who created the article has edited the article claiming that the subject has no relation with the person having the same name reporting for LA Times. The above comments from an unregistered user is stating the same claim. voldemortuet 20:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That is very interesting. Two journalists with the same name who are or have been stationed in Pakistan. Who would've thought? I know the name might be common in south Asia, but still... Kudos to the editor/creator for pointing that out. Respect! --Oakshade 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to all of you who took interest in this article. Yes I created my page myself. If you think it should be deleted, then please do it. I have no objection. Mr. Mubashir Zaidi, reporter of Los Angeles Times is a Islamabad based journalist and we haven't met. My home town is Karachi but I am living in Sharjah and working for Geo TV. I would be happy if someone like to contact me mubashirzaidi@hotmail.com... Mubashir Zaidi 5:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read articles of Mubashir Zaidi in daily Jang and sports magazines. I can remember that he won a TV Quiz ten years ago. I recognized him by his photograph on this page. He is surely that Quiz master. It was a news for me that he is now a TV Producer. Wow... Don't delete his page because we admire him. Humaazeem

I am feeling sorry to take part in this debate. Mubashir Zaidi was a contributor of daily Jang, daily The News, weekly Sports Times, daily Public, monthly Cricketer and many other newspapers at a time. Actually he was a cricket statistician and also compiled a book. I have a copy of 1996 edition of Wisden (people say it cricketer's bible) and I can see his name there. nasrrullah 8 December 2006

Straightforward Delete - fails standard, as I see it, set out in WP:BIO. Eusebeus 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - article does not assert or establish notability of subject. --Chondrite 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stonnar

Contested WP:PROD. I had deleted it, but I take the re-creation as ex post facto contest. Listing here as a procedural matter. Mackensen (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article merely states that the title is another name for an erection. If this were the case, then this would warrant a redirect, as a duplicate article about the same thing. It is Wiktionary, not here, where every different word gets its own article. But I can find no evidence that this is, in fact, a word that is another name for an erection. Indeed, I can find no evidence that this is in fact a word at all. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is not a word. Delete. Uncle G 19:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as made up nonsense. Zero related g-hits and no references. meshach 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per UncleG. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete boredteencruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Made up in Fife one day. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unverified/OR. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad Yahya Waliullah

Non Notable Pakistani bureaucrat. Notability not asserted. Insufficient GHits, mostly coming from WP mirror sites. voldemortuet 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Even by searching through Arabic (his original name language), no sources were found. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching, but I don't think I count. :-) -- Visviva 08:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom; does not appear to meet WP:BIO. -- Visviva 08:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete,can be re listed if notability is ascertained Alf photoman 15:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hlade's law

del nonnotable unreferenced witticism. only 165 unique google hits, mostly blogs and smartass lists. `'mikkanarxi 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete no sources whatsoever. Danny Lilithborne 22:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:VERIFY. -- Satori Son 03:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 02:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spirtokouto

Independent Greek film. Article claims it's "award-winning", but doesn't state what the awards are. IMDB listing has very little information. Author has created numerous vanity and nonsense articles. NawlinWiki 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Tentative delete. Tagged the notability assertion {{citeneeded}}, hoping for the best, but without at least that citation soon, that assertion goes away. Without it, it's a clear delete. DMacks 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment A brief web search turned up the award, which I've added to the article. I have no idea how important this award is. Eludium-q36 22:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Switching to Keep. Seems reasonable on its face, so keepable unless there's evidence the award is meaningless or some other detracting issue. DMacks 22:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I'd like to see it expanded and referenced though. "Cult-film" according to who? Chovain 04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing to Delete per Satori Son (below). The only hits on Google are for film festivals showing this film. These are not independent references, and are nothing more than advertisements. Chovain 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. No non-trivial coverage of subject by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Satori Son. --Chondrite 06:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

A little bit of research goes a long way NawlinWiki. In view of this, your feedback was nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stathis Psaltis (talk • contribs).

Please refer to the link to the Thessaloniki International Film Festival for information on the credibility of this award. Furthermore, your policy on deleting material that you are not familiar with is very discriminatory and limits the beauty of Wiki. My comments on your research, NawlinWiki in particular, are justified considering the intention on deleting this entry without having researched it satisfactorily. I will respond to you with the same level of respect / disrespect that you show me. The world is bigger than what we all will ever know and I suggest you are not so quick to delete articles which have some credibility attached. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stathis Psaltis (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How many third party published sources would make you content to maintain this entry? Please clarify as there are thousands of wiki entries with 1 or none third party sources. It has been established that this film is a legitimate film, has won awards domestically at Greece's most prestigious film awards and has been played in foreign cinemas around the world. Please justify your motivation to delete this entry and explain with at least some detail what issues you are having in accepting this article. Stathis Psaltis 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stathis Psaltis (talk • contribs).

Also, the reference I provided is not from a press pack. Please check the information. This was easily found on a previous occasion by another editor on the IMDB website. That is a neutral site and is not associated with the film in any manner. As far as further references are concerned, dont be concerned, there are several notable references for this film available on the net. A simple google search can show you this. All references provide a very similar short summary of the film. For example;

http://imdb.com/title/tt0382988/

http://boutique.info-grece.com/product_info.php/cPath/3_146/products_id/5060

www.mooviees.com/34666-spirtokouto/movie

http://mymovies.imdb.com/title/tt0382988/maindetails

http://www.moviestation.org/movie/29982/Spirtokouto

http://movies.webula.net/titles/?list=S&id=1467

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stathis Psaltis (talk • contribs) 11:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've hyperlinked your refs to make it easier for other editors. I hope you don't mind.

The problem with those links are as follows:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0382988/, http://mymovies.imdb.com/title/tt0382988/maindetails: Same page - only indicate the movie exists, but not that it is notable. There is no question about the existence of this movie, only the notability. IMDB coverage is trivial as per WP:N.
http://boutique.info-grece.com/product_info.php/cPath/3_146/products_id/5060: I can't comment directly, as I do not know Greek. It looks like it's taken from a press-pack though (the blurb the producers give to the retailers). I question its independence.
www.mooviees.com/34666-spirtokouto/movie: trivial - It's just an empty discussion forum
http://www.moviestation.org/movie/29982/Spirtokouto: Retail information scraped from Amazon.
http://movies.webula.net/titles/?list=S&id=1467: Empty page.

The ref you supplied earlier (I think it was Adelaide Film Festival?) was much better than all of those put together, but still looks like the producer's blurb verbatim. Chovain 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My edit summary on my last edit was misleading, sorry - fixing on this edit Chovain 00:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

All this article intends on doing is stating the existance of this film, and all the above references reinforce the fact that it does exist despite any perceived short fallings of each reference you may have.

The link was to the Greek film festival of Ausrtalia. Spirtokouto featured nationally in every Australian capital city as part of the festival.

The information is not the producers blurb, I have that and I can provide it if you wish. However, based on your feedback I had made further changes to Spirtokouto to make the entry even more neutral.

The intention is only meant to be a simple entry stating the films existance and the existance of this film is beyond any doubt. Keep this is mind. Stathis Psaltis 03:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not enough that the film exists - it has to be notable, and verifiably so. My Grandmother exists. I could prove it if I had to (with independent web links, including newspaper articles). She's a lovely lady, but she's by no means notable.

I have never questioned the existence of the film named Spirtokouto. I merely question it's notability.

From my own searches, I accept that the Thessaloniki Film Festival is notable (although its article needs improvement). I accept that the Golden Alexander award at the festival is significant, and its winners are notable. I accept that Spirtokouto won the Greek Film Critics Association Award (based on this link). I do not feel any evidence has been put forward to indicate the Greek Film Critics Association Award is a notable acheivement. It receives no English-language coverage ([49]) beyond those who are promoting the award's winners. Chovain 02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No Guru 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Message

I think that a good set of articles should be written if all the songs on X&Y are going to be entered. If we are going to write articles about non-released songs, they should (1) be well written, (2) have more links to the album itself (infobox etc.) and (3) have all other songs in the album written about. Sebrat 07:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete See, here's the thing: We should not write a set of articles on every song on an album, no matter how notable the album and no matter how good the article. This song is not notable, regardless of the article's quality. -- Kicking222 22:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information, and should not have a separate article on every song. -- Chondrite 19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not enough importance to justify a whole article. Could be part of a larger article. Tragic romance 08:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 05:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antony Little

Contested prod; non-notable parliamentary candidate who lost and placed third. Inserted notability to keep prod is all unsourced and some was removed because of controversy with no reliable sources at all (in accordance with WP:BLP). Relatively minor offices held do not help to meet criteria for inclusion based on WP:BIO. Was also edited by User:Antonylittle. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair nomination in its current state, but surely if the current information is properly sourced it meets the criteria: '..and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. ' as the leader of the opposition in a UK city of pop over 100,000? Reverieuk 00:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That is for people who were elected, not people who lost. People who have lost and have articles should have other things that make them notable. For more, see Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Candidates and elections is merely a proposed guideline. JamesMLane t c 17:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Further more, you might want to ask the User, AntonyLittle, if he can add any more sourced notability himself. Reverieuk 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: He can't and really shouldn't do that, since it would be a conflict of interest and original research. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well, points noted. I have moved all the content to User:AntonyLittle. If nothing else comes up within the time scale, I have no concerns with its deletion. Thanks for regulating Wikipedia for us all! Reverieuk 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn. meshach 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - vanity/nn --61.114.193.19 12:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Becoming a major party's candidate for the national legislature is notable. JamesMLane t c 17:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a big difference of opinion in the matter. Can someone of authority offer some clarity as to what the guidelines are for Parlimentary Candidates? I'd imagine that many article's fates ride on the decision. If it is allowed, then I think the article's importance overweighs any 'vanity' issues, and I would be inclined to vote for 'keep'. It is important to note, most of User:antonylittle 's edits have been to remove inappropriate content. Reverieuk 18:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

At the moment there is no authoritative policy or guideline. My comment above is my personal opinion, with which other Wikipedians disagree. Use your judgment. Over time, a consensus policy or guideline may emerge from the process of many people using their judgment on many specific articles. Then again, it may not. JamesMLane t c 07:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Candidates must meet WP:BIO like anyone else. If they are notable candidates they will have plenty of press coverage. This individual, though, has no cited coverage. Sandstein 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - the standard for unsuccessful candidates for Parliament should be the same as for unsuccessful candidates for U.S. Congress: WP:BIO. A guideline that I also use is the question "Is this person notable only for losing elections and not significantly known in any other capacity?" If the answer to the question is "yes," then the subject doesn't reach the WP:BIO bar. This is the case, apparently, with Mr. Antony Little. B.Wind 03:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Anne Ferris

Simply put, she lacks notability. She was an unsuccessful independent candidate against Dennis Kucinich for Congress four years ago; her family owns a steakhouse (rationale taken from history Tizio 16:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - failed election candidate with no other claims to notability, so fails WP:BIO -- Whpq 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Articles for individuals who are only notable for an electoral loss contribute more noise than signal. -- Shunpiker 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - flunks the notability test. --Orange Mike 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. She was an independent candidate in 2004; she also ran in the Democratic primary in 2006. In the latter race she had the endorsement of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Notability is borderline, but when the area's major newspaper endorses a challenger to a prominent incumbent Congressmember, it elevates her above the typical losing candidate. Also, her work as head of IWDC has attracted some attention, such as this article on the AARP website. JamesMLane t c 17:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I should've mentioned that most of the information supporting my view of notability wasn't in the article before my comment. I've added it. JamesMLane t c 07:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Of course I've heard of her and she's locally notable, but does not pass WP:BIO. Has she even won an election? --Wizardman 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Damodar Valley Corporation. Agent 86 02:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damodar Valley

There already are two pages - Damodar River and Damodar Valley Corporation. All information on this page are there on either page. P.K.Niyogi 14:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Damodar Valley Corporation as that seems the proper name. --Oakshade 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dure Sameen

The person this article is about is not notable based on the article text, google search[50] which returns 44 unique pages that do not mention the word "Wikipedia", or google scholar (0 results). John Vandenberg 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete, non-notable per WP:BIO. This reads like a resume. —C.Fred (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as both above. Also, the fact that the article was contributed by an editor who has made one single contribution (this page) is highly suspect. DrKiernan 08:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per above, non notable, no achievements. voldemortuet 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete non notable. NeoJustin 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow me!

I can find no reference to this program. Grant it the name is somewhat open ended if you will. I found a reference to an ESL program called "Speak To Me" that may be related. James084 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I remember watching the program in TV in Argentina; I'll look for more info to add. -- dockingman^talk 07:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: there is a reference to the show at Follow Me (disambiguation), dated before than the creation of the Follow me! article, and by a different editor. -- dockingman^talk 07:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment 2: There is at least a reference from BBC having such a show and its success in China; [51]. I can't seem to find what would be the notability criteria for TV shows... any ideas? -- dockingman^talk 07:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, article does not assert the notability of subject. The one reference is a trivial mention in passing by one of the involved parties. -- Chondrite 20:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"Keep" Follow me was a popular english course from the BBC that you would buy in a set of Video Cassettes in Colombia where it was well known. I was trying to find references in internet about this program because I just remember one of its funny musical didactical scenes

Keep - I found several references to the show, including this article (middle of page 2) which asserts that 100 million Chinese people watched.--Kubigula (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's another passing reference, it does comment that the program was widely viewed in China but does not cover the subject in depth sufficient to support an article. Chondrite 06:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  - True. I guess my point is that if 100 million Chinese watched the show, then it must be notable. So, I think it is worth keeping as a stub and giving people a chance to flesh it out and find information and sources.--Kubigula (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    - The problem is that it is not possible to write a proper encyclopedia article on any subject tha conforms to Wikipedia content policies without relying on in-depth coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. -- Chondrite 18:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Proper TV programme; but more sources needed otherwise it will, eventually be Deleted. 86.20.53.195 17:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not need to provide an article covering every television program that has ever been produced. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE -- Chondrite 18:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with BBC - series presented by national television networks are sufficiently notable, but there's not quite enough here to stand alone. B.Wind 03:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. —Centrx→talk • 02:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KLTS Tower

As cleanup following successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating a whole bunch of US radio and TV towers that are no more than that 350 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Actually, the only one a 'tiny bit special' appears to be WVIT Tower, and apart from this, none of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 05:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
In the interests of transparency, I should point out that KISS Radio Tower passed AfD back in April, 2005. Debate here Ohconfucius 09:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete allI can't see that just because something exists it needs an article in this encyclopedia. These articles seem to be spews from other online databases: find a database, make hundreds of articles from it. No effort is apparently made to show how any is notable. All we get are a bunch of stale copies of someone else's data base. Are they all uniquely designed an built, or do they just come out of a factory assembly-line style? Why not create a meaningful article about the styles, manufacturers and assembly methods of towers, how they evolved over the decades, and how the height affects the signal strength and reception area? Edison 22:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete all First off none of them are notable. KVLY channel 11, the NBC television affiliate based in Fargo, North Dakota, uses the tallest above-ground structure in the world for broadcasting its signal. The KVLY-TV mast rises 2,063 feet (628.8 m) high, and set the standard for current height limitations in the United States. The steel tower is taller than the combined height of the Great Pyramid Khufu at Giza, the Eiffel Tower in Paris and the Washington Monument...and THAT tower is just mentioned as part of the channels' article. Remind me again why these cookie cutter towers deserve their own article? --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete all If any notability is shown, it will end up being part of the article of who uses the tower. Also see List of masts, there could be a lot more. We should probably keep that list ( it does need cleanup), but NOT have article for them. Drunken Pirate 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and protect from recreation as a nonsense magnet. At the end of the AfD, the article contained six gangs, all of which are also in List of California street gangs. As an unlikely search term, a redirect would make little sense. Sandstein 19:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Los Angeles street gangs

* Keep Just needs some cleanup. Perhaps only the notable gangs should be listed, as well as what part of Los Angeles they're from. --MasterA113 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete The list is insane, especially considering how few of these gangs are actually notable (hell, I doubt many of them even exist). There's already a category that performs the same function, and aside from very specific geographic info, this list adds nothing that a category doesn't cover. -- Kicking222 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep But add references to avoid hoaxes. Gangs are, for better or worse, a notable and important part of every large city I am familiar with. Their signs and tags would be a useful addition, and "who rides with whom" in which area.Edison 22:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unverifiable. Anyone can come here and add their "gang" and there would be no way to proove which ones are actually notable, or for that matter, real. If you pared the list down to actual, notable gangs, it would look like this:

Crips

Bloods

Wavy G 04:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

keep of course it is verifiable, because the notable ones get news coverage. And the topic is of considerable importance DGG 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. The subject is notable, and the list contents are verifiable. Unverified entries should be removed per WP:V. changed opinion, see comments below --Chondrite 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the article has just recently gone under a major attrition. When it was brought to AFD, it was a huge, unverifiable mess. As it stands now, the list seems okay, however, there is already an article on List of California street gangs, which is practically the same thing. So now the question is, do we really need both? Wavy G 20:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Follow the articles' histories. It was moved to California street gangs, but then someone came along and reverted the redirect. ^Blank^Verse 19:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Ok, but the issue still exists that there are two separate article, one very short list, and one even shorter list, all of which is covered in the other list. Wavy G 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Delete both, and replace them with proper articles. ^Blank ^Verse 17:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Extreme delete. It is constantly being filled with nonsense and hoaxes, different gangs will 'erase' their rivals, much of it is hard to verify (and usually from sources that are less than reliable), ad infinitum, ad nauseum. It should, instead, be replaced by a well-referenced article on Gang activity in Southern California. ^Blank ^Verse 19:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. How about any gangs with an article should be kept, and we could remove what race each gang is. I'll go clean it up right now. --MasterA113 21:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- The problems with the articles on individual gangs are the same, if not worse, as this article. Most of them are tagged with {{unreferenced}} and other dispute templates. Most of them are filled with original research, awkward English and bad spelling, unverfiable information, and often just plain nonsense. ^Blank ^Verse 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I fixed it up just a little bit more. --MasterA113 21:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- The point I was making initially, was that if the article is pared down to just the list of notable gangs (as it is now), the article is still not worth keeping. Why have an article of five or six gangs, especially when they are all covered in List of California street gangs already? Wavy G 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There's already a category system for gangs, including a subcategory for Gangs by location, so a list of only bluelinks is redundant. As pointed out by Wavy G, the list of Los Angeles gangs is also redundant to the List of California street gangs. The subject would be better served by a proper article as suggested by BlankVerse. --Chondrite 22:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point --MasterA113 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge. Merge with List of California street gangs.--MasterA113 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] note to the closing admin

If this article is deleted, please protect from recreation.

If the article is turned into a redirect, please do a full protection of the redirect to prevent another recreation (see discussion above). ^Blank ^Verse 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 11:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of backup software

fails;

Wikipedia is not a repository of links
Wikipedia is not a directory Hu12 06:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is not a "mere collection of links." It is sorted and there are short descriptions of some links. I fail to see how this list is any worse than many others in Category:Lists of software & precedent has shown that many of these lists are kept. It is true that many of the articles in that category are in continual need of cleanup, but this particular list isn't that bad (thanks, in part, to GraemeL who removed linkspam). --Karnesky 10:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. While I'm generally of the opinion that articles such as this would be much better as a category, there are a couple of regular editors who are making efforts to sort through the redlinks making stubs for the worthy and removing the non-notable. After some initial conflict on external link spam, we reached a reasonable compromise and I think it will be kept tidy in the future. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The article may not be very incomplete or in-depth, but it's more than just a mere collection of links. With some expansion, it could have some potential, such as mentioning what makes each piece of software different or unique. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment List of backup software, unlike List of dog breeds is unencyclopedic, incomplete and in violation Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information which offers no other content beyond links to other commercial articles and websites. It would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category. This list is a violation of . However if kept, it will continue to be a future target for unsourced or self-promotional additions and require more maintenance effort than a category. Consider the Advantages of categories. One such precedent [52] which was deleted and is now catagory. Clearly to prevent List of backup software from continuing to be a linkspam trap and from attracting article spam in the future, Delete and make it a Catagory. Hu12 09:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that a comment or a delete?

The list is organized by type of backup program (which is only possible with subcategories)
The list comments on products (which isn't possible with cats)
Is being used to write stubs from red links (which we can't use a cat for)
Includes non-commercial software
Includes mostly notable software (red links are purged after a while & deleted articles are removed from the list)

Also what is "this list in violation of ____"? I'd vote for the deletion of this list when/if we had a good Comparison of backup software. Until we do, it serves as a useful index to both present and requested articles.--Karnesky 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One and a half years old and the article has grown to become a Listcrufty red linked directory of backup software which is of interest to a very limited number of people. From the points you mentioned above, it sounds like your trying to create either a directory or comparisons of backup software. We all agree Wikipedia is not a directory, so Why not remove it as you did last February with List of accounting software, and create comparison of backup software (That would make for an encyclopedic read), Untill then, implement this directory into a catagory.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information states articles should not exist only to describe the nature or services offered, List of backup software exists only to descibe the nature and service backup software offers. Hu12 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For List of accounting software, I merged the list into the comparison before deletion. If a comparison page is made that is a superset of this list (or at least contained all blue linked products), I'd agree with deletion. (Furthermore, list of accounting software had only a list of blue links in alphabetical order--there was no categorization or potentially notable products to write stubs for.)

But there isn't yet a comparison & so deletion is premature. This list doesn't exist ONLY to describe services offered. As has often been said, it exists to serve as an index to both written and requested articles in WP. --Karnesky 00:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Any index that contains almost 50% empty articles (30 blue 27 red, excuding uncategorized) hardly serves its purpose as an index. Editing efforts would be much better spent placing this drectory into its own catagory and developing the 30 current articles to their full potential. Hu12 02:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So what ratio would you define as the cutoff? The redlinks are one reason why we can't merely create a cat--these are requested articles. The largest problem, I think, is with the "Managed backup service providers" section that was merged in. It has fewer blue links than red links and is the source for ~60% of the red links in the article. I think we need a semi-objective way to cleanup that particular section. --Karnesky 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep this seems like a fair list of software, and it's not just a bunch of external links. There is real content here. I don't see a reason to delete. It meets WP:LIST because it does provide information, aids with navigation, and according to prior editors, it is used for improvement of Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 16:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. There are too many notable tools/packages to include in Backup software or Backup. Sorting, filtering, and annotating neutrally makes it encyclopedic. I would suggest developing a rubric to help editors make neutral filtering judgements. Austin Murphy 23:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW, my filtering rubric is remove all redlinks that are up for longer than six months & remove anything that has had an article deleted from WP. GraemeL and I have compromised that there will be no external links to commercial and proprietary products, but that the URLs will appear in HTML comments so that subs can be created. --Karnesky 00:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- FWIWis that links are of a lesser degree of criteria for notability and non-commercial, and so on than articles, and the appropriate thing to do with a dubiously notable article about a product is to make it a link. And that red links is the source of future growth. But Karnesky & I take opposite positions on almost all aspects of this. DGG 08:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PCHC

The one google hit for this term from "is.wiki". Non Notable. The band that linked to this genre was db. --phenz^Talk 03:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. Punkmorten 17:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This is just the name of the Reykjavík hardcore scene. I don't see why this should be deleted. This is very simular to Washington DC's harDCore. Almardadi 18:33, 6 December 2006 (GMT)
- No, it's not. DC hardcore has gained worldwide fame and is subject to third-party coverage. Punkmorten 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Reykjavík PCHC has been a subject of many fanzines all over Iceland and the UK. For example, the fanzine Aumingi #002 is entirely about PCHC. There is not a web-version yet, but as soon as it's on the web I'll link to it. Almardadi 00:56, 7 December 2006 (GMT)
Delete Very unverifiable. -- Kicking222 22:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 02:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also Instant Star episodes with Screenshots.

The real page is at Instant Star episode guide. - Peregrinefisher 06:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete I'm sure this could be speedied somehow... -- Kicking222 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete There is already Instant Star episode guide so i see no reason for this seperate article. No content forks. Cnriaczoy42 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect both to The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray. Pertinent details can be taken from the edit histories to flesh out the Cray article. ~ trialsanderrors 11:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thaniel Fox

These two appear to be characters in a book called "The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray" which doesn't even have its own article. I think it suffices to say that they fail WP:FICT in a big way. I prodded Thaniel Fox a few days ago and it was removed by the article's author with the reason "I think its unfair that my article is going to be deleted when others such as dinosaur planet and many of the comic book character pages remain even though mine is much better written." Axem Titanium 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. And I still think its a good reason. Removing it simply because YOU don't think its noteworthy is a personal opinion and unfair as their are countless, even shorter articles, about even more obscure characters that remain here regardless. Nubula 09:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- The existence of other articles does not justify this one. It only means that I have not seen those articles and therefore have assessed them as to their notability. If they truly are more obscure and less notable, I can assure you that they will be listed for deletion as well. Axem Titanium 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. And if your major complaint is the fact that The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray doesn't have its own page then fine, I'll go ahead and write it. Happy? Nubula 09:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be missing the point. These characters are not notable, which is a fact, not an opinion. The book's notability is an entirely different question and you may want to look at WP:BK for that. These character pages are entirely not notable enough for their own pages, however, because they can easily be included in the main article's page under a "Characters" section. A problem many new editors have is the compulsion to create character articles for every character in their favorite book. Axem Titanium 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Personaly I think, even if you remove the biography, their is still far to much information about this character to just slip it in on the main page. Nubula 11:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Also, now I think about it, your claim that this characters lacks notability is just an opinion, and not a fact, unless you can back it up with evidence in some way. Have you conducted a vervifiable poll or have some other form evidence to prove the character has no signifigant following? Nubula 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Google test - only 950 hits. Axem Titanium 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Thank you. Now you can point me to the where Wikipedia places the cut off point. Because I've yet to see the rules where it states you need x amount of hits to give a character its own page. Nubula 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone going to answer me? Nubula 13:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm only going to ask this one last time. Is anyone going to answer me or is this debate closed. Nubula 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Have a look at Wikipedia:Search engine test, but also WP:FICT. The search engine test is not conclusive, and there is no fixed number of google hits that establishes that a subject is notable. -- Chondrite 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the article on the book -- Simon Cursitor 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray (Silver Award Winner at the Nestlé Smarties Book Prize 2001, "in the best story-telling traditions of authors like Joan Aiken, Philip Pullman and Tamora Pierce (Bookseller)", etc), a successful book by a major publisher. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Assumng the book is notable, Merge and redirect to The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray per WP:FICT. Asking for evidence that characters have "no significant following" is asking for proof of a negative. According to logic and WP:V, the burden of proof lies upon those making a claim, in this case a claim of notability. -- Chondrite 06:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge both to The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray as the two characters don't seem to be notable enough to stand on their own, but as part of the book itself, which does stand on its own. B.Wind 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep; although this was closed a couple of hours before it should have been, there is no way any other result will occur. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zanta

Possible vote soliciting was posted @ http://blogto.com/city/2006/12/zanta_deleted_from_wikipedia/ -- Tawker 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This entry was posted before the AfD happened. It alerted me to the improper deletion, and thus I restored the article for its due process. Note that I discouraged voting by outsiders. -- Zanimum 14:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As per the motion by BFD1 on Deletion review, I have restored this article for a (first, second?) AfD process. -- Zanimum 14:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Zanimum. This is the first AFD to my knowledge. BFD1 14:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Featured in the two largest newspapers in Canada (Star, Globe); banned from the downtown of the largest city in Canada (Toronto), by request of a media organization (CHUM) recently bought out by the largest broadcaster in Canada (Bell Globemedia); banned from the largest municipal transportation system in Canada. -- Zanimum 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. article asserts notability, is carefully referenced and supported by reliable sources, and possesses a neutral point of view. The central argument in favour of deletion is that Zanta fails notability. Due to the nature of Zanta, he does not neatly fall into any of the categories in WP:BIO. However WP:BIO is not an exclusionary list, and Zanta should be considered an actor who has had numerous media appearances. The spirit of governance surrounding WP:LOCAL should be extended to this man of predominantly local interest, although there is sufficient reason to suggest that interest in Zanta is more global than that with his appearance on a Showcase television series aired in the US and Canada, with his appearance in articles of newspapers with international distribution (The Toronto Star). Since wiki is not paper, there's no reason to delete this article even if it were only of interest to residents and visitors to Toronto, which by the way is the largest city in Canada. BFD1 14:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete ~~pending addition of more sources. News coverage so far indicates possible minor notability, but so few articles doesn't really make it clear.~~ As WP:BIO states, "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles." I don't believe that the sources establish enough notability to merit an entire article. --Strothra 14:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO do not parse notability into minor notability and major notability. There are a number of notability criteria, any one of which is sufficient to call a topic notabile if met. Since Zanta has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself, Zanta is notable per WP:NOTABLE.-- Jreferee 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Seems notable enough to me, and it also seems that there are enough verifiable sources. Bizarre, but good enough. JDoorj a m Talk 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Per WP:BIO, people who satisfy at least one of the items in WP:BIO may merit their own Wikipedia articles. Per WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Zanta has been the subject of (1) McLaren, Leah. (April 30, 2005). Globe and Mail. Who is that capped man? Meet Zanta Ho Ho. Page M1 and (2) Gerson, Jen. (September 12, 2006). Toronto Star. So close to the stars, yet so far away; Tiny Penelope transfixes crowd Going with the Flow nets no result. Section: Entertainment, Page C3. Since Zanta has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself, Zanta is notable per WP:NOTABLE. In addition, per WP:NOTABLE, "Published works" is intentionally broad and includes published works in all forms. Both Globe and Mail and Toronto Star are Published works per WP:NOTABLE. Further, WP:NOTABLE does not require a minimum geographic region for the fame. The opinion that "his "fame" is entirely local to Toronto" as posted by an annomous Wikipedian is not relevant to whether Zanta is notable per WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO. Moreover, whether a Wikipedian personally thinks a subject is or is not notable is not relevant to whether Zanta is notable per WP:NOTABLE.-- Jreferee 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. WP:N clearly states that notability is not subjective. It is not an editors job to remove articles because it has no relevance to them. The subject has been discussed multiple times in major reliable sources as per the criteria of WP:N and therefore this aritcle should not be deleted on the basis of lack of notability. Thylark 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I found another article on the subject and updated the Zanta article accordingly - Israel, Samantha. "Zanta, the 'living legend,' banned from TTC for 2 years: Won't put up with push-ups;" [Toronto / Late Edition]. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Nov 17, 2006. pg. A.14 Thylark 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep for now, and it can be happily merged to TTC a years hence when this kerfuffle is forgotten and the unnotable Zanta will live on as a mere asterisk reflecting the greatness of his oblivion. Eusebeus 16:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why merge into "TTC"? He's banned from the whole of Downtown Toronto, and from the city-owned fairgrounds where dozens, if not hundreds of conferences and events take place every year. And even if he were to be merged into TTC, where? The TTC is parent to dozens of related articles itself. -- Zanimum 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep - some of the sources are blogs and MySpace (and the YouTube link should be removed, as it's definitely not considered a reliable source), but the media coverage seems to be close to the bar. I know we kept a California busker recently that was of this similar stature, but I don't remember the name of the article... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, generally I'd agree YouTube isn't a source. But we're citing a student film that exists offline, that interviewed the subject of the article himself. Are documentary shorts not citable? -- Zanimum 17:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a couple cups of tea in me now, so I'm awake. It's probably okay as an external link, but it's definitely not a reliable source - I can't find the discussion, but I know that there's a lot of work being done stripping out YouTube links from articles right now. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So if someone were to cite A Note of Triumph: The Golden Age of Norman Corwin in the Norman Corwin article, would that be allowed? I mean, are any docs citable, or is it just student films that can't be cited? Isn't any citation better than no citation? -- Zanimum 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue with these would be whether they're secondary sources or not. I'm honestly not sure how video/television/etc. reporting is classified for our sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. notability is not subjective. Because we non-Canadians didn't hear about Zanta before doesn't make him less notable, it just means we didn't know about him. There is a cultural issue here as well, as odd as Zanta may be, since deleting Zanta would appear to be the removal of a Toronto Pop Icon from the Wikipedia, which means all other pop icons are suspect (such as Naked Cowboy, who was only elevated in status to support publicity). Not everyone lives in the United States, and not everyone has the same influences. That said, having read the article I find it appears to be factual, and establishes notoriety to a fair degree. In this regard, he passes the grandchildren test: If you see him, you would probably tell your grandchildren (and they would probably look it up). While not something I see as a valuable resource, I see no harm in keeping it as a part of a large and rich world culture. However, if it is selected for deletion I do expect to see Naked Cowboy in queue for deletion with this entry's result as a precedent. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the Naked Gander. --TaranRampersad 16:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Plenty of notability and notoriety here. Compare many other articles, such as Diceman (Dublin entertainer). Snalwibma 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Well sourced article about someone who is a local identity in Canada's largest city. Capitalistroadster 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's a better referenced article than a lot of cruft articles I've seen. I think he qualifies under WP:LOCAL and meets WP:NPOV and WP:V. ~ BigrTex 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - meets WP:BIO with verifiable reliable sources. -- Whpq 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep.' He has numerous media appearances in print, television and the internet. I believe in a city like Toronto, a character like Zanta is very notable to the local citizens. If he was in Venice Beach, California, perhaps nobody would care. Given that he is one of a kind for Toronto, he remains in the spotlight and often talked about. There's even a Livejournal community about Zanta sightings. Sarnya 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is a pretty cool/weird/etc guy here in Toronto and for the purposes of this discussion notable for the reasons listed above. Lsjzl 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Article is well source and interesting. We could do with more articles like this, not less. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
keep please should not have been erased ever it is notable and verifiable too with many sources Yuckfoo 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: has references from national newspapers, and thus meets notability criteria. -- 80.168.226.41 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Only 26 edits. -- Zanimum 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Cribcage 04:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Mind you, I've actually seen this raving lunatic with my own eyes. The article is factually correct. The fact it was deleted earlier is a disgrace to those of us with deletionist tendencies. Properly sourced, referenced and formatted articles should not be deleted, and the fact that this had to go to deletion review to save it is ... distressing.--Elar agirl^Talk|Count 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I second the sentiments of Elaragirl. This article, much like the deletion review of Arch Coal that Jimbo Wales challenged with futility in October, is a testimony to how the Wikipedia community has lost its collective mind with deletionism. --JossBuckle Swami 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Close debate and keep. No new arguments have been presented in favour of deletion. It seems some approximation of consensus has been reached. BFD1 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep An odd bird, to be sure, but the article is well-referenced and asserts notability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, incredibly minor Simpsons joke. NawlinWiki 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insert Brain Here

UE Simpsons cruft that is nowhere near warranting an article ccwaters 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews in apostasy

Delete - appears to be original research, sources have been requested since June and none have been provided Jefferson Anderson 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:Jefferson Anderson arrives on Wikipedia on December 4th 2006, makes a couple of edits [53] and two days later he is nominating long-standing articles for deletion? This is highly questionable and one wonders if this is not the working/s of a troll? IZAK 02:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - not OR, the article has links and ext links. Needs cleanup though. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Definitely not original research, as Humus sapiens wrote above. shotwell 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Valid, not OR. Shlomke 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's real and encyclopedic --Oakshade 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Not a featured article by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a legitimate stub, doesn't fall too badly afoul of the WP:NPOV policy, and is reasonably well sourced via the external link to the Jewish Encyclopedia. An obviously encyclopedic topic on which we should have an article. The sourcing tag probably should have been removed back in July when that was added. GRBerry 11:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait for sources. Suggest renaming to Apostacy in Judaism because the concept of apostacy, not claims about specific individuals, is the more legitimate encyclopedic topic. The article has serious POV issues, not the least of which is that it presents Midrash and Aggadah as fact, but the topic is a legitimate one in Judaism and I agree with others that sources can be obtained. Nonetheless, WP:V requires the production of actual sources, not reliance on participating editor's opinions, in an AfD. --Shirahadasha 11:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes, I was being a little lazy when I wrote my !vote. I figured the link to JewishEncyclopedia was enough. Is there something wrong with that reference? There is also this book: Endelman, Todd (1987). Jewish apostasy in the modern world. Holmes & Meier. ISBN 0-841-91029-4. . 'Modern world' here means the last two centuries. There are also many scholarly articles about Jewish apostasy which show up on all the normal academic databases, although none of them are cited in the article or appear to have been used as sources. These, at the very least, show the subject is real, notable, and not original research in itself. Perhaps the article contains some original research or unverified claims, but this could be removed and we'd still have more than a sub-stub or dictionary definition. shotwell 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, It is legit and reasonable. --Shaul avrom 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - quite interesting actually. --Shuki 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep this article based on truth and facts, whereas the nominator neither cites nor displays any knowledge about this topic. IZAK 02:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marlon Richards

NN celeb kid. Ckessler 17:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:BIO by a mile. Using the article and a google search, the only "claim to fame" I have discovered on his part is being the child of a celebrity and marrying a model who doesn't even have her own article. He has not written a book, appeared in / directed / produced a notable movie, or performed a concert. People are not notable by association. Srose (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO. NeoJustin 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above -- No Guru 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I started the article when I was doing something to avoid working or bored with television one night and I suspect until he adds anything more of substance to his "public profile", the article should be deleted as per the guys' comments above. --Mikerussell 17:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cybernovela

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybernovela. Yes this was deleted before, and I could apply CSD G4 here. But I think we need to take a second look. The topic looks at least interesting. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, if not as G4, then as G11. All of the points made in the original AFD still apply. Just get rid of it. Recury 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Whether this is a direct repost or not, it's half NN neologism and half advertisement for a single show. -- Kicking222 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
speedy delete per all the reasons in 1st afd and CSD/G4. --61.114.193.19 14:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thelemapedia

Delete- site does not appear to meet WP:WEB - advert? there are also quite a few external links to the site. Jefferson Anderson 17:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Add WP:VANITY to the list, as the creator of the article Ashami was also the creator of the web site.[54] —Hanuman Das 07:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - after actually reading the applicable policies, I can't in good faith vote keep. Frater Xyzzy 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Strong keep - one of the more significant Thelemic resources on the web. Frater Xyzzy 18:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. (Disclosure: I've contributed to this article, but at the time I was not very familiar with WP policy and didn't realize the site wasn't notable enough for inclusion. Now I know better.) —Hanuman Das 00:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - An excellent resource of rare and hard to obtain material. Probably should be toned down a bit so it doesn't seem like an advert. However, I do find fault with people who directly cite the website as a source rather than entering the actual title, ISBN and page number of the source and then hyper-linking to the site - if the site was to go down quite a bit of things would be improperly sourced as a result. - WeniWidiWiki 18:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep , but rewrite to keep out npov issues. FirefoxMan 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - only sources seem to be the site itself. There are no reviews or mentions in media as required by WP:WEB. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European Canadian

This is a cut-'n'-paste content fork of white Canadian, with "European" replacing "white", rendering nearly every statement in the article incorrect. The original article should be dealt with, and moved if consensus dictates. —Michael Z. 2006-12-06 17:57 Z 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete [nominator] —Michael Z. 2006-12-08 02:40 Z
Delete as POV fork. This is not a helpful way to resolve the current content dispute at white Canadian. - Eron ^Talk 18:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep- either the White Canadian or this article should stay. I think this one should be kept for now while the White Canadian article is under review for deletion.--^DarkTea 22:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection

Non-notable self-reference. I suggest moving it rewritten to the Wikipedia namespace if not exists there already. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Given there has even been a vfd on the namespace article on the English Wikipedia, I think this is a 100% legitimate question. The CD was published in March 2006. I think the question is about notability viewed as a publication in its own right. Claim would be notable compared to other minor publications already established including because of (1) media attention (articles in Norwegan http://magasinet.telenor.no/default.asp?page=27&article=1325 , copies sold on India Ebay, distributed in South Africa through the Shuttleworth Foundation which was discussed here: http://www.thephoenix.com/article_ektid19238.aspx , part of a weekly newsquiz at a Hindu Business newspaper: [55], discussion on many UK educational websites: try http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNFA,RNFA:1970--2,RNFA:en&q=2006+wikipedia+cd ) (2) significance as the only CD of the English Wikipedia (3) 35,000 plus downloads (200M so not for the fainthearted), all freely copyable which represents a significant number of interested parties. There are many less notable publications with namespace articles. The edit history has been lost with transfers back and forth to Wikipedia Space. I put it in Namespace because I think on this basis it is a

keep--BozMo talk 19:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Notability established beyond reproach by independent media coverage. Project aspects covered in project namespace, mitigating concern as to self-reference. -- Paleorthid 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Wikipedia. Shorten dramatically if necessary. Recury 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Smerge or just delete As self-referential as possible, and there is no external notability given. I don't see any of the links given by BozMo as reliable, and I don't see anything in the article as criteria for keeping the page. -- Kicking222 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge to appropriate article in Wikipedia namespace. SYSS Mouse 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep The self-referential aspect of the whole thing is problematic. On the other hand, there has been a little bit of media attention and maybe enough for a small article. Maybe delete voters would be more comfortable with keeping if there were added references and if it did not feel so much like an article written as self-promotion by people involved in the project. The question we should ask is: would we be keeping this article if it was about a selection of Encarta articles somehow freely distributed by some NGO? I believe we would. But we also have to realize that we would delete the unreferenced details and the same should be done in this case. Pascal.Tesson 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- If it was an article about Encarta, and there were multiple reliable sources discussing the selection, then yes, I'd probably !vote keep. But I don't see that here (ignoring the self-reference). -- Kicking222
- I would find it helpful for my general education if some can point me at something explaining self-reference in the context of reliability versus in the context of notability. There is a bit of Catch 22 because (in the lost edit history) initially it didn't link to or discuss the project pages at all but we were told we needed reliable references. Also were told (see talk) that the page had to mention as yet unpublished WP projects to avoid NPOV (I didn't like this). I will have a go at removing self-reference anyway and put in a couple of review comments to see if it can be improved. --BozMo talk 09:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per SYSS Mouse. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Providing an opinion, as requested here. I don't know if this already exists, but I would suggest creating a WP:space page about such distributions. There it will have development options that wouldn't exist if it was an articel, OR it may be developed as an articel free from the possibility of an AfD untill it can be merged back into articel space. Incidentally, as a new (2007) version is about to come out, it may be worth just consolidating 2006 and 2007 into a single articel covering all release of it. 68.39.174.238 00:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Notable. --- RockMFR 00:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Can you please explain yourself further? Why do you think this article should be kept while we redirect other self-referencial articles like Wikipedian? Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  - This Afd has nothing to do with Wikipedian. This publication is notable. --- RockMFR 17:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Ehhm this is not true, as they are both self-references. This was originally moved from the Wikipedia namespace by BozMo. Please note that we remove many such articles that relate to Wikipedia from the mainspace, and this is not a different example. Please also note that higher notability of a Wikipedia-releated subject is still not a reason to move it to the mainspace; for instance, it is expected that the the term "Wikipedian" might also have a lot of notability established by Google hits and publications, yet still does not have its own mainspace article. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Higher notability of a Wikipedia-related subject IS a reason to move it to the mainspace. Hence why we have Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia in popular culture, Reliability of Wikipedia, etc. The existence of the redirect at Wikipedian is not a valid reason to move/delete this article. --- RockMFR 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning that there seem to be over a hundred mainspace articles with "Wikipedia" in the title (I can't get the search syntax right to get the exact number). --BozMo talk 09:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Became notable with the number of people who wanted the CD, bought it or downloaded it. Lincher 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Paleorthid. FrummerThanThou 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Very week keep. Marginal, but still notable. ^Blank ^Verse 09:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Think long term. If this page gets deleted and later we feel this is notable, we would need to add into the article that it was deleted becuase other sites would say that and we need to be unbaised--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 13:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete'. (aeropagitica) 09:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne Beer War

Not only is this article is out-of-date and extremely inaccurate, but its contents have been incorporated into the articles on the particpants in the "War."

Delete as per nom. --Stlemur 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. While there are some sources for this see [56] its contents have been incorporated into other articles. A general article Beer in Australia would be good though. Capitalistroadster 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, everything relevant has been added to other articles. Lankiveil 04:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Delete--cj | talk 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Roisterer 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice towards later deletion. The number one problem with this article was really only mentioned by one supporter of deleting the article, which is WP:V and WP:RS. The one source referenced in the article hardly counts. The notability of the subject is also a potential issue, although one that is directly related to WP:V—if adequate verification can be provided, it is likely that the notability issue will also be addressed. I see that there has been some effort towards finding references as discussed on the article's talk page. As there is active effort with some promise of being fruitful on fixing the primary issue with the article, I'm closing this now as no consensus. If the article is not cleaned up and sourced within a month, I recommend relisting it. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black concert T-shirt

Non-encyclopedic Frater Xyzzy 18:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This is just a color of shirts sometimes given out on concerts, not a fashion. Highly non-notable and non-encyclopedic. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per User:Michaelas10, and the sole reference provided is just mentions that a black T-shirt is available at this one particular concert. -- Whpq 20:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete We don't even have an article called Concert T-shirt so I don't see how we could have a fork about a particular color they come in. Dina 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: I look forward to the next exciting instalment of clothes that come in different colours, what's next, yellow trousers ? Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but move to concert t-shirt. The title is indeed inapropriate, and the article itself mentions that there are other colours. I think that everyone agrees that most bands sell T-shirts during their tours (black or otherwise); therefore how is it non-notable? It is a source of income for bands, a common type of clothing for music fans (there is a section about this type of clothing on the heavy metal fashion article for example). I agree that there are reasons to delete this article, but non-encyclopedic is not one of them. In fact, non-encyclopedic does not correspond to any policy that I know of, and therefore is never a reason for deletion. I would be very grateful to the nominator (or anyone else) to take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may be needed and provide a more suitable reason for deletion. I would also like people to assume good faith from the creators of this article (I'm not one of them) and keep the use of unnecessary sarcasm to themselves. It is particularly unhelpful and "non-encyclopedic" in an AFD (or elsewhere in wikipedia for that matter). IronC hris | (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: More discussion is available on the [talk page] --Mattarata 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Article was nominated for deletion due to un-encyclopedic nature. This is very clearly a fashion trend, of which there are thousands of other wikipedia articles. Fashion trends that are written about in news papers and magazines are clearly encyclopedic. The specific black color is probably the most common, or commonly thought of, color for rock concert T's, which is why the article is so titled. The black color is a trend by itself separate from concert T's in general. There are now 3 different references. Having a main article called Concert T-shirt is not required for this article to exist. What this article needs most is more content and references specifically written about the topic rather than just mentioning the topic. --Mattarata 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, ~~absolute rubbish~~ Adequately covered elsewhere. Deizio talk 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind expanding a little? I mean, right now no one who voted "delete" has cited a policy or guideline that this article offends (apart from non-notable, which is clearly not the case). Thanks, IronC hris | (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's about as notable as "Breathable oxygen is something enjoyed by many humans". Maybe a section in T-shirt or Heavy metal fashion. Not an article. Deizio talk 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is already a section in both those articles about this item. It seems to me that if two seperate articles need to mention it then it's notable, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be mentionned anywhere else, and definitely not have a whole section in both cases. What's more, take a look at rocker jacket and kutte. Why are these clothing items more notable? Neither of them even has a single reference, whereas this article has one and two external links. However, as mentionned on the talk page of this article, I support moving this to a broader title, like band T-shirt (which is at least as notable as a torn denim jacket with patches, cf kutte). IronC hris | (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The other articles aren't up for debate here. This can be more than adequately represented in the existing articles which keeps all the information in one place, rather than forked into an unnecessary article called "Black concert T-shirt". Chris, I love your work, I think this is about all I have to say on this one. Deizio talk 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I compiled some more research which i listed on Talk:Black_concert_T-shirt. Hopefully these references, pulled from published news sources, will sway the opinion of those who think the term is made up or otherwise not notable on its own. There are a ton more references in blogs and other less reliable sources which I didn't include. --Mattarata 01:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: a black concert t-shirt is not just a fad... it's an identifier for an entire subculture... though i'm personally not a fan of these t-shirts, or the people in them, it's my npov that they ARE a cultural phenomenon, of sorts. so shoot me.

--Yufeeko 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: earlier someone mentioned 'The other articles aren't up for debate here' exactly they are not and are a similar type of item. They exist. They are a subculture. Which there are PLENTY of on wiki. Wiki's not paper. The article could use some details etc but the article does and should exist.--Xiahou 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Black concert T-shirts are an important part of metal culture in many parts of the world. I see no reason why this article should be deleted; it is a valid topic, and an important resource to many, regardless of whether you wear them, hate them, or study them. romarin [talk ] 05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge to heavy metal fashion. Certainly notable enough as a worldwide subculture phenomenon involving millions of people. Multiple references can be easilly found as proved on the talk page. Prolog 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as an unencyclopedic list of shops. (aeropagitica) 09:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Apparel Design Shops in Sendagaya

A list that cannot possibly hope to pass WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate stuff. Also fails WP:V, doesn't follow the proposed WP:LOCAL, and definately almost everything here fails WP:N. Elar agirl^Talk|Count 18:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Seems wholly irrelevant. Fails WP:NOT totally.--Anthony.bradbury 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - wikipedia is not a directory service. -- Whpq 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sosb 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment WP:NOT is irrelevant because this list is not an indiscriminate collection of information; rather, the criteria for inclusion are quite specific, and all items in the list are clearly related by geography and line of business. Nor is this a directory, since the list includes no contact information. WP:V does not apply; every establishment has a sign or mailbox or directory listing which is a published record of its existence and makes it verifiable. WP:LOCAL is irrelevant, since this is the fashion district for the country, making the shops and their culture of nationwide interest. "Seems wholly irrelevant" is not a basis for deletion. Notability is not a criterion for inclusion in the article; whether or not the individual shops are notable doesn't matter. Notability is a criterion for the subject of the article; this subject is definitely notable. Fg2 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This IS a directory, exactly like signboards outside of your average North American shopping mall: that it lacks contact information only makes it a BAD directory. --Calton | Talk 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we agree that it would not be good as a directory! Fg2 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Handwaving aside, it's a directory, useless as an encyclopedia article or even as a travel guide -- except possibly for someone living in Sendagaya looking for new clothes. --Calton | Talk 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Indifferent. I began and wrote most of the article back in March. At the time, I thought it was important. It's not the best of my work. Still, Sendagaya, Shibuya remains the fashion design centre for Japan and if anyone knows anything about fashion, what those teenage shoppers buy in Shibuya, the world gets a year later. This is a list of shops - as in ateliers - not places for shoppers to buy clothes but for designers, suppliers, writers, media, modeling agencies and buyers to come together. Still, if the article was merged into the Sendagaya or Shibuya article or an article about fashion/design in Tokyo/Japan, I'd be cool with that. I won't be the one to do it, however. Bigger fish to fry. (P.S. Thanks Fg2 for the valiant defence.) (I noticed I didn't sign earlier today when I wrote in. So, DDD DDD 06:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC))
- It would be good to keep the information somewhere in Wikipedia. How about moving it to a subpage of your user page? Eventually, it might find a home. Fg2 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Withdrawn--172.145.73.159 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noguchi Filing System

Only around 20,000 unique google hits [57] hard to say if it's notable, no sources, etc..also, not really written like an article--172.145.73.159 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmerlin 18:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC) It's legit. The reason there are not massive references to it is that the original book proposing this filing system is written in Japanese. The reason it "not really written like an article" is because I am a newbie, this is my first attempt at a contribution!

Then pretty much all you need to do is cite a few sources and it will probably be speedy kept--172.145.73.159 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World of Warcraft terminology (second nomination)

To clarify, I am not relisting World of Warcraft terminology because of a question of usefulness or value in the information (ie "fancruft"). Rather, I am relisting it because, even months after the original nomination and having been tagged and discussed on the talk page, the article still contains no verifiable references. The article was originally kept under the assumption that the information within is verifiable. However, those references have not been provided. Even the original author of the article has conceded on the talk page that he is constantly deleting unverified and often probably inaccurate terminology, and was himself considering deletion. I recommend that either the article receive at least SOME citations for verifiable terms, or if nothing is verified during this afd discussion then the article be deleted and only reconstructed when proper citations can be provided. Dugwiki 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'd suggest refraining from bringing up issues of being "unencyclopedic" or "fancruft", etc. Those issues were discussed in depth in the original afd discussion and were apprently rejected. Thus I'd suggest remaining focussed here solely on the question of verifiability and references, to avoid confusing the issue. Thanks. Dugwiki 19:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and because Wikipedia is not a game guide ➥the Epopt 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Having content related to games does not make it a game guide. If it explained how to do something, it would be a game guide. Explaining terms is not a game guide. -Ryanbomber 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Besides, many of these are not exclusive to WoW in any way. - Che Nuevara 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - this article is essentially a specialized dictionary -- Whpq 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge - some of those terms aren't unique to wow and can be merged back into the mmo terms article, but i haven't had the opportunity to sit down and really look. also, the content could be transwiki'ed is it? to wowwiki. also, as a matter of practically, where do you suppose these citations should come from? i guess that opens up a larger can of worms as to where any citation comes from... oh well. i never liked this article anyway. --Htmlism 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- One possible source for references would be if Blizzard has an official guide to game terminology on their website or in their manual, or if a published hint guide has a glossary of those terms. Just a suggestion of where to look, maybe. Dugwiki 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - If lack of citations is truly what's at heart here, then this article can't exist. So many of these acronyms are just things that players know and use from general chat. It's impossible to cite short of me or someone copying all the content, making a blog post somewhere and saying "these are the termx0rs we use to communicate in World of Warcraft". You'll never find this stuff in a book. --Htmlism 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I'm tired of being the only one who enforces the warning at the top of the page. --The Nayl 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not really all that notable, sort of crufty (although that's not the nominated reason) would be a reason for weak delete, but if nobody's citing it, it'd be best to just get rid of it. -Ryanbomber 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, in 25 years nobody will be playing WoW and nobody interested in this list Alf photoman 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Alf photoman. Also, it's cruft. NeoJustin 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that nobody will be playing in 25 years (even if that's true, which I'm tending to doubt considering the massive appeal of the game, UO's survived about 10 years now after all...) doesn't make it less relevent. Pop culture is pop culture. If you want to disagree with an article's content, go for it, but don't do it for stupid reasons like this. -Ryanbomber 12:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan above. The "cruft" issue has already been debated in detail in the previous afd discussion, so this nomination works under the assumption that the article does have useful information for readers. The problem is that none of the information is referenced or verified, and has been so for a long time, which means that as a policy matter it should be deleted if that can't be rectified (articles need to use only information verified by external published sources). Dugwiki 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - this cruft. --61.114.193.19 12:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Barry Bonds. Redirecting for now, as your humble European servant has no clue about this sport, and the merger should be done by someone who does. Sandstein 06:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Bonds 714th home run

Is the news about a guy catching a home run really that notable? dockingman^talk 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, can never be anything more than a stub. I assume the information is already in Bonds' article. - Che Nuevara 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- not who caught ball. not value of ball. 72.36.251.234 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Has multiple independent non-trivial mentions. the 5-6 indipindent non-trivial mentions Tony Pierce has is enough to keep him around, so why not the 100s of indipindant non-trivial mentions this has??? 72.36.251.234 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- You know, I kind of dislike it when people wave around lack of sources as the only deletion reason. But this article shows the exact opposite: Just because some fact is well sourced, it doesn't mean it can be included. (It can be included if it's relevant.) And it certainly doesn't mean it should be created as an article of its own. This article has relevant, sourced facts, yes, but creating an individual article about the facts is completely needless. This is merge material at best, and if the article on the players involved already has the material, then it's delete material at worst. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Barry Bonds. --EEMeltonIV 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Bary Bonds as this home run is part of his career. -- Whpq 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Barry Bonds. This could be a small subsection, while notable, does not diserve own article.Cnriaczoy42 22:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. If the value of the ball and the guy who caught it are that damn important, put a single sentence in Bonds's article. Otherwise, there isn't even anything worth merging. I can't even imagine an article on his 756th homer, which (assuming it happens, and I truly hope it does not) would make him the MLB's all-time leader, much less an article on the homer that tied him for second. -- Kicking222 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Mstroeck make good point. We have featured articles about individual Pokémons, for God's sake. There is zero reason to request deletion of this article. Capital letter Notability is not a de-facto requirement for Wikipedia, and hasn't been for quite a while. If it's interesting, it's here. 72.36.251.234 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, whether an article is featured or not makes no difference. Second of all, there has been much talk about this "Pokemon" defense, and I'm sorry to say that it fails. Even the most obscure Pokemon are still known by millions of people and featured in television shows, films, and video games. I love baseball, but not enough to say that an article on a single home run with no sociocultural impact is necessary. -- Kicking222 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- It appears you don't know the primary reason why AfD exists: we're here to determine whether or not the article's subject warrants an article of its own. There's every reason to bring the article to AfD if there's a doubt that it doesn't; every editor who's familiar with what material Wikipedia tends to keep would take one look at the article and think "should this be deleted or merged?"... the nominator went "I'm kind of leaning toward delete, let's ask what others say." Pretty much no one would think that this has potential as a stand-alone article; it's merge or bust. Finally, if you're in a wikilawyering mood about this article, remember we're to ignore all rules (and, by corollary, use common sense) when faced with situation like this. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Barry Bonds per above. We do not need an article about the home run which beats the record, which he appears to be making. He's up to 733, so if keepers' logic holds, that'll be 19 home runs potentially worth an article. Ohconfucius 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. *sigh* --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Mergewith Barry Bonds. --Optichan 15:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per everyone else's argument. I don't see how this article could ever become anything bigger than a stub. 04:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was that the AFD was withdrawn; Nomination for article was based on this state, but creator quickly asserted notability after AFD warning. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tontine Group

Contested prod; non-notable company that fails to assert notability based on WP:CORP. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Regrettably the nominator did not allow me time to assert notability in response to his nomination for proposed deletion. I believe the company meets WP:Corp as it
- owns a Genericized trademark (Doona) and the pillow brand name makes it a subject of jokes or popular commentary [58] [59]
- it is the market leader with a market share of half of all pillows produced in Australia
- it has been mentioned in newspapers [60]

thus I nominate for keep --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (article author and unconnected with the company)

keep per Golden Wattle DXRAW 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep for sure, very notable Australian company. Good sourcing, GW.--Canley 01:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- notable company. - Longhair\^talk 02:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. There are 285 Google News Archive returns for Tontine pillow [61]. Article currently is well sourced and establishes notability. Capitalistroadster 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
keep per Golden Wattle. Now I know why we call them dooonas.--Grahamec 04:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable company in Australia. Lankiveil 04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Keep Clearly satisfies the usual guidelines. --Oakshade 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Golden Wattle. JROBBO 06:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. Kimchi.sg 06:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wedding Slashers

Poorly sourced, reads like advert--172.145.73.159 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as copyvio from its IMDb article] with no prejudice against recreation as a legitimate article. - Che Nuevara 19:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete very advert-like. Seems ripped from IMBD. Doesnt even seem like a real article even. Jamesbuc

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JDoorj a m Talk 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Kolowich

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{db-bio}}. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason in this case. It is not a clear cut delete, sources are provided, and this guy may be of note (judging from the talk page). Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. We're talking about someone who writes for a college paper, and sings in a college group. The paper may be notable, and the a capella group may be notable. Does not make every writer for the paper, and singer in the group, notable. Fan-1967 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - the facts and references not in dispute, but does not pass the bar for notability. -- Whpq 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. I fail to see what notability is being asserted. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No Stance. This may be a reasonable candidate for deletion, but I would agree that it's not clear cut. It's unclear whether this is just some random guy who wants attention or whether he is someone who is truly notable. --J-Party 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I have no reason to doubt what is stated in the article, but someone who writes for a college newspaper, sings in a college a cappella group, and performs music which to date has only been distributed via MySpace does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC by virtue of those activities. There is also a conflict of interest in that the name of the article creator resembles the name of the subject. --Metropolitan90 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Apparently, this is a test of the process. See http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/article.php?date=2006-12-08&section=2&id=2 - Bevo 20:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters who wear fingerless gloves

WP:NOT#indiscriminate. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is the very definition of a collection of indiscriminate information Dstanfor 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The very meaning of indiscriminate. Wow. I can't believe this has been around for so long. Kafziel ^Talk 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This article and list seems very pointless and silly. Some of the characters mentioned as well have only worn the item of clothing for about one scene as well so... Jamesbuc
Delete per WP:NOT. Unencyclopedic collection of non-useful information. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. What a brilliant idea for a list! Why stop at the fictional characters? I have never seen a better example of what constitutes a list of indiscrimate information. Beyond pointless. WJBscribe 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete pointless, especially since in some cases the gloves are part of an outfit (i.e. Wario's motorcycling gear) instead of their usual garb (Wario's purple overalls w/ non-fingerless gloves). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Informative and well-maintained. There are tons of wacky lists lists on Wikipedia. Sparsefarce 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please do list them so it can be considered if they too should be here for their own AfD... WJBscribe 22:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Just because there are already tons of wacky lists is not an excuse to add another one. Probably time for these other wacky lists to have an encounter with WP:AFD too. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete Of all of the idiotic list pages that appear from time to time in our encyclopedia, this has got to be a strong contender for the award for the most trivial.--Anthony.bradbury 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information nor a finger-fetishists paradise. Create List of greengrocers with hairy knuckles and Jacket potato toppings which John Travolta detests instead. QuagmireDog 05:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Informative, but needs sources. --80.80.16.67 10:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (Whoops - wasn't logged in. --Turbothy 10:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC))
Keep Important resource for marketers of all types of winter wear. --Ambrosen 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete listcruft (even though I just added to it ^_^) Danny Lilithborne 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete along with List of the addresses of fictional characters, List of fictional people who were cremated, etc.. How many fictional lists is it possible to make? (about 1,460 according to Google: site:en.wikipedia.org +"list of fictional"). - Kristod (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a much better google search than mine: site:en.wikipedia.org "list of". The benefit of mine was that I saw that their could be a good use for a list Dstanfor 15:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep — Nice encyclopaedic list, I see no reason to delete. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Stong Delete this article is cleary against WP:NOT. Specifically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it does not get much more indiscriminate that this. --64.229.74.28 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, for all reasons above and hope that consensus will be deemed to have been achieved with this vote. Daniel Case 14:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Surfer Issue Guide

Looking at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Collaboration#Category:Issue_Summaries this appears to be an attempt to move the Wikipedia project into realms of annotation, plot summary and book guides, something I think is better performed by WikiBooks. I don't really follow what the idea here is, I don't even follow what the article itself is doing, but I really don't think this content is appropriate for Wikipedia. It's hard to see how we're going to maintain these articles, to ensure they are in keeping with policy, and it's hard to see where they fit in with the remit, that is with WP:NOT. Bringing it here for a wide and considered debate on the issues this article presents. Hiding Talk 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't see how this is substantially different from, say, a TV episode guide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Looks to me like episode guides aren't encouraged either, judging by the conclusions at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. Hiding Talk 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this is not what Wikipedia is for. Recury 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. I can't tell what this article is supposed to achieve. ~CS 21:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait if this was a list of issues likeList of The Amazing Spider-Man comics it could stay. It was only started on December 3 so maybe if we inform the main author of the article of other examples of this type of list, it will improve. Cnriaczoy42 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've already linked to a discussion with the author. ~~This is the authors second attempt at~~ Hiding Talk 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - This really is not what Wikipedia is for. Do it at Wikibooks or Wikia. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batista_and_Rey_Mysterio

A three week tag team doesn't deserve an article. They never wanted to be a significant team.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshake3 (talk • contribs)

Keep As per previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rated RKO, all WWE Tag Team Champions are notable --RoninBK_ETC 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That team has its own name and is currently running... this team went unamed for the three weeks they performed together --- Paulley

Keep Notable enough, even if you ignore the fact they held belts. DavyJonesLocker 21:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Per above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep, and perhaps a speedy close Very obviously, this tag team is notable. Even if they were together for five minutes, they would be notable if they were the champions for four minutes. -- Kicking222 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment:Can i ask why would they be notable if they were together for five minutes
Keep If this was a 3 day WWE tag team, they would be notable. --Oakshade 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Would you all say that an article about Eddie Guerrero and Tajiri is worth creating? 12.206.114.132 03:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep only because they won the belts, otherwise I would say Delete. DS9 Voyager 05:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete All the information will be in their own profiles. Also the fact there is hardly any information on that page. I feel it doesn't need to be kept. Govvy 13:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and put blurbs on each wrestler's page, if it ain't there already. No, not all tag-teams are notable. Especially not tag teams that don't have a name other than the two wrestler's names themselves. -- Grev 09:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete they had three matches together and the one week title run was to promote a single match at a PPV... hardly notable whatsoever esspecially as their tag team career can be descibed with one paragraph on each wrestlers article --- Paulley
- On a more wikipedia note... there is infact only one article that links to this page --- Paulley 17:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Nothing notable about the tag team.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Short lived teams (even if they held the title) aren't notable. Relevant information belongs in Batista and Rey Mysterio articles only. Stop with the tag team cruft already. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a guide to every WWE tag team ever. RobJ1981 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not a real team, was only around for a bit, the tag team landscape has changed so much that there are plenty of these thrown around teams together, and there should not be an article, just merge info to the separate wrestler's pages. Booshakla 02:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Information belongs in the pages of the individual wrestlers. --Aaru Bui ^DII 15:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This has nothing to do with them not having their own names, but they were never a real tag team, as their gimmicks were as separated when they did team together as when they didn't. Key hint of this: they teamed together like this while Batista was the World Heavyweight Champion. 172.149.224.143 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. — CharlotteWebb 04:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Hills Mall

Was a prod, but editor removed tag. Prod reasoning: No assertion of notability here. It has some common shops and has been around for a while, but seems to fail WP:CORP. (though the same editor may be suggesting that having a successful redevelopment plan may make it unique....) Inner Earth 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For some reason I wrote part of that nomination in the third person - to clarify, I prod'd it, and suggest Delete, or failing that merge.

Merge with Fairfield, Alabama per WP:LOCAL. Not enough verifiable info for a separate article but worth a mention in the article about the town. Kafziel ^Talk 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge No statement of GLA inarticle, so can't judge size. Edison 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, or at most merge with Fairfield. Notable because it is a dead mall (or nearly so) that was successfully redeveloped. I know, because I just went there to buy stuff.Realkyhick
Merge per Kafziel. DrKiernan 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Fairfield, Alabama. The dead mall angle is more that many deleted mall articles had, but it just isn't enought to establish notability. Dimitrii 20:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Kafziel, yet more mallcruft of purely WP:LOCAL interest. Xtifr _tälk 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, as there is no requirement to replicate information found in other articles. (aeropagitica) 09:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Late Night with

Delete as nom. This article looks to be just a cheap knock off of content found at Late Night with David Letterman and Late Night with Conan O'Brien with no originality. The article overall is a cheap attempt to emulate The Tonight Show and its history of varying versions/hosts. Ultimately, the article is—and forgive for using the word—crufty. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, the author says he was "creating 1 article for both Late Night's" but it looks like he messed up pretty bad. Probably isn't such a great idea anyway. Recury 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - the shows are pretty much separate entities and already have their separate articles including a history section which covers the transition. At best, this could be a dab page pointing to the letterman and o'brien shows. -- Whpq 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep to early to delete, clean up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this is a disambiguation page gone wild. The two shows share sets and some staff and part of a name but are otherwise not considered in any way the "same" show. --Dhartung | Talk 10:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per above - there are only two "Late Night with" shows; Conan's has an extensive page which already covers the history of the post-Dave transformation, and Dave's covers the history of the ending of his show and moving to CBS (Late Show is more of a continuation of Dave's Late Night than Conan's Late Night). I would say this page should actually redirect to Late Night. Another way of looking at it is that the production company that produced the Dave's Late Night moved on to produce Late Show. Lorne Michaels was brought in to produce a totally new show. The only retention was the name, and the format of a talk show. TheHYPO 21:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I had redirected it some time ago, but suddenly the cretor popped up again after several weeks to "expand" it. While I can see the limited utility in a redirect, it would be best just to delete the thing, purging the page history among other benefits. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 09:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lasse Gjertsen

Non-notable animator? IMO appearing on Youtube hardly qualifies one for a Wiki entry. Fails WP:BIO --Edchilvers 21:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, WP:BIO, no sources for the unclear assertion of notability. Sandstein 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - lots of blog entries and whatnot, but no reliable sources. -- Whpq 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I've got alot of trouble ignoring 484,000 ghits for such an uncommon name. --Oakshade 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment counting ghits is not research (per User:Uncle G). Have you found any articles which would be sufficiently reliable and contain enough information for an encyclopaedic article? Ohconfucius 08:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've clashed with that user before and respectfully don't feel that an essay by one user should be the fundamental dictation of the consensus driven Wikipedia. --Oakshade 16:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - When I googled, and saw the search results, my first reaction was that this guy was likely notable. But in combing through a lot of the results, I simply could not find any reliable sources, just lots of blog links. I am quite open to a keep if somebody can dig up reliable sources. -- Whpq 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Having once had a difference of opinion with someone is not reason enough to ignore sense in what he says, especially when backed by wikipedia policy. Whpq has correctly pointed out that in many cases, apparent notability often turns up as google-bombing upon further investigation. It is a lazy approach to stop researching when you see >10,000 Ghits. Keep digging and find us something which would swing the debate. Ohconfucius 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. -- Mikeblas 01:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Ohconfucius 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of the Gangs from the Sly Cooper Video Game Series

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- WTF?!?!?. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Also the deletion was contested with a {{hangon}}. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NOT a game guide, WP:WAF/WP:FICT problems - that enough acronyms for this mess? Sandstein 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Sandstein 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT WP is not a game guide. --Mhking 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per all of the above. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. WTF may not be a valid deletion criteria, but it is a valid sentiment when reading this article. -- Whpq 21:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
WTF? Er, I mean delete, since this is an obvious game guide and can never be anything else. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as irrelevant Cooper-Cruft, WP is WP:NOT a fansite substitute. All the article seems to do is highlight that the Sly Cooper developers ain't fixing what ain't broke. QuagmireDog 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Good Original Research for some other place. Is there some place to transwiki it to? Dimitrii 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. NeoJustin 22:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can't hang

No sources or references. The bands homepage is just a Myspace page. That Wikipedia page made for this band is also terribly written. THis should be deleted sharply. Debaser23 13:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete The page is mostly pasted from the Mono Records web site. 6000 albums over seven years is good for a regional band but hardly notable. Static Universe 18:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete this dead-end orphan article that appears to be in part a copyvio. The listing of the band's sponsors doesn't exactly enhance its notability. While the article asserts that the band "is touring nationally," lack of sourcing makes verification of this extremely difficult. B.Wind 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. "Tending to be a relatively private person, Ray doesn't like to give out much details about his private life." Oh, yes, of course, except for a very long Wikipedia article... Sandstein 06:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Muñoz

Nom - No sources; no (or minimal) claims to notability; this article appears to be a self-promoting hoax; if notability can be found, then this article needs a serious re-write Rklawton 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete The fact that it is a long article does not hide the fact that it is a biographical promo of a non-notable person.--Anthony.bradbury 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Delete unfortunately, it asserts notability all across the board, but it is still a garbage article that should be worthy of speedy. Danny Lilithborne 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete It is quite obviously a vanity piece by an editor contributing a single page. DrKiernan 17:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was consensus for not keeping the article, but no consensus for merging the content. Consequently, redirect to Donald Trump, and mergers are now an editorial question. Sandstein 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trump Rate

Prod removed. This article has two citations, one noting Donald Trump's regular salary and the other his fee for speaking engagements. The article, however, contains a mathematical formula (not cited) that is either OR, a joke, or both. Also, the title "Trump Rate" appears to be a neologism. At best, the two dollar amounts should go into Donald Trump; either way, this article needs deletion. Ginkgo 100 ^talk 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete This article is either a joke or an advertisement. Or possibly both.--Anthony.bradbury 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Trump would have only two words to say about this article: You're Fired!!. Google hits for this phrase mostly link to articles about mortgage rates and casinos, no indication or references given that this is not made up in school. Delete Tubezone 22:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete `'mikkanarxi 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete TSO1D 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Retain I found the article that I pulled the formula from and added it to the list of references. canadian0 22:46, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Comment It's still a neologism, even if Milton Friedman made it up. The web pages you reference don't even use the phrase "Trump Rate". Tubezone 05:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleteper above. NeoJustin 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Change to merge as nominator. The source for the math function was cited, but there still seems to be insufficient information for a separate article; recommend merging into Donald Trump. --Ginkgo 100 ^talk 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I would agree with a merge of Donald Trump and this article. Canadian0 16:50, 11 December 2006 (EST)

Retain The article is not a neologism because it is about a specific rate of wage income, which has largely nothing to do with the celebrity for which it's named except that Trump set the limit for the previously modeled maximum wage. '"Retain"'. supercoolzane 08:32, 8 December 2006 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.213.18 (talk • contribs) — supercoolzane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without further discussion: zero sources. Sandstein 05:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mdsc

Unsourced article on a seemingly non-notable summer camp. Looks like advertising too (and when did Arkansas become part of the metropolis of Detroit?). Metros 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- Although, website is located here. Bearly541 23:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 00:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Hoffman

A sort-of-notable columnist for a a popular magazine, but I doubt that there could be any more written about him besides the short stub it already is. Possible redirect to Nintendo Power.

I am also nominating these related pages for deletion because they are about columnists for Nintendo Power, too:

Steven Grimm
Andy Myers (Nintendo) —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Non notable person with very, very short pointless article. Debaser23 09:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. On their own, they are not notable. --- RockMFR 00:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all Notability not established for any. Khatru2 08:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hillis Holt

Fails WP:BIO? No assertion of notability and a clear bias towards the subject--Edchilvers 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per above. Shows bias. Bearly541 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - No sources, almost no Google hits, not verifiable. Wickethewok 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Not notable, clear bias towards subject. Lorenj 07:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trilby's Notes

No reliable source to support notability. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The series, if not this specific game, has been featured in multiple publications, including (but not limited to) the UK PC Gamer. It's also probably one of the more famous freeware adventure game series. BovineBeast 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- One gaming magazine is not enough to prove notability and importance. Andre (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's enough to prove that it isn't so ridiculously obscure that it's nothing but a vanity article. Which is enough, really. BovineBeast 12:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Fairly well known and featured in various sources. Jefffire 12:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge ~~Weak keep~~ - My brief Google search found lots of blogs, but also this review. Combined with UK PC Gamer, it makes a borderline case for multiple nontrivial sources.--Kubigula (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment- I'm changing my position to merge. I think it would be better to have one longer article on the series of games - it would be a better article and avoid issues on the notability of the individual games.--Kubigula (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge ~~keep~~ - Another review at adventuregamers.com --Amaccormack 22:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as part of notable 5 Days a Stranger series. will likely win multiple AGS awards at the next ceremony. multiple 3rd-party sources included in "external links" section (they should be moved to the "references" section though). and please restore deleted 7 Days a Skeptic article to complete the series. 195.114.94.194 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to 5 Days a Stranger as part of the series. (Radiant) 13:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment One article for the whole series seems like a pretty good idea to me. It would solve the current problem of having a page on Trilby and 5 Days, but not one on 7 Days (which was previously deleted as a result of AfD). Does anyone know if the series itself has a name?--Kubigula (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  - The Ben Croshaw pages refers to it as the "John DeFoe series", but Yahtzee himself has referred to it recently on fullyramblomatic.com (when announcing the new 4th game in the series) as the "Days series". It remains to be seen whether DeFoe actually features in the 4th game. Neither of these are very satisfying, but as long as the indiviual games have redirects to the main article, its not vitally important. NB I have an improved version of 7 Days here waiting for reinstatement/merge --Amaccormack 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Proto::► 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Croshaw

Lacks reliable sources to show individual notability. Appears to be a developer of games that are not notable according to WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add, he also fails WP:BIO. Andre (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No RS, no apparent notability. -- Kicking222 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep If you delete this then go ahead and delete the Adventure Game Studio article and all the games associated with it because Ben Crowshaw is the most notable creator for it. Then call for the deletion of all the Interactive Fiction articles and all related authors and games like Andrew Plotkin and Photopia because they're just as notable as Ben Crowshaw and his games. If you're not willing to do that then stop bothering these pages. Richard Cane 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's not a valid argument. Perhaps all of those things should be deleted if they're not sourced and proven to be notable. Andre (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - No, they have to be deleted because they aren't sourced or notable to the extent you seem to demand. Start with putting that deletion notice on Andrew Plotkin and then work on over to Adam Cadre. Delete their games and then go from there. I've provided you a list and all you have to do is put that deletion notice on them so you can clean house. Richard Cane 14:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to post a list to help you on your deletion crusade.
Delete most of the games on these lists: List of freeware games Category:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels

These aren't notable so delete this article: List of amateur adventure games

Why bother? Amateur developers aren't commercial and that makes them unimportant. Not notable: Amateur adventure game.

These are what allow people to create their own games and not make a profit so I don't think anyone needs to know about these: Category:Adventure game engines, Category:Text adventure game engines

Sorry Japs, not notable :-(: Dojin soft Category:Dojin soft Richard Cane 03:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have already tagged many such pages for deletion. However, it has nothing to do with being commercial. Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. As it happens, very few games created by amateurs using game creation software can make that claim. Andre (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- To elaborate: it's clear to me that, say, Cave Story, is quite notable, despite being noncommercial, due to the great deal of critical coverage in independent, notable, reliable sources. However, Ben Croshaw's titles do not have this sort of critical recognition. Not that I feel that they are without merit because they are obscure, but that they are simply not suited for a general purpose encyclopedia due to notability requirements. Andre (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, how can the notable quality of Ben Croshaw even be worth of discussion? The guy won innumerous awards for his games, check out their pages:
- www.fullyramblomatic.com/5days
- www.fullyramblomatic.com/7days
and that is just the tip of the iceberg
The guy also ran a pretty famous webcomic... Please, if the http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/ should put ONE person to be grateful of having as developer, he'd be chosen by far.

Also, he'd been featured in many specialized magazines (I'm sorry I don't know links to prove this, but I've seen such magazines.

And one more thing, to prove the man capabilities, he have been working on a fairly well known australian games mag to write for it (if you also don't belive this, buy a mag and see it for yourself)

I'm not a frequent wiki editor, so sorry if I made any mistakes here, I'm just trying to prove a point--200.178.127.73 04:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
even more info about him:
http://www.answers.com/topic/ben-croshaw--200.178.127.73 04:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's a mirror of the Wikipedia article. If the only source that you can cite to demonstrate that this person satisfies our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies is the Wikipedia article itself, then not only does this person fail to satisfy the notability criteria, but the article content even fails to satisfy the Wikipedia:Verifiability requirements. Please cite sources to show that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Then delete every author of an interactive fiction title. Then delete every interactive fiction game and then proceed through the lists I've provided above. You can't just pick one group of authors and amateur games designed from Adventure Game Studio while ignoring others who have just as much notability. Eliminate them all or don't even bother trying to argue about notability. Richard Cane 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    - As I say, we will eliminate them all if they are as notable as Mr. Croshaw. Andre (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Why the delay? Are you scared to touch the interactive fiction games and authors? Prove they are more notable than Ben Croshaw or delete as per norm. Richard Cane 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        Since you say that they aren't notable, I'll get to them when I finish with the amateur adventure games. Face it, the "there are other things equally unnotable" argument isn't working. For now, this article must be assessed irrespective of any future deletions. Andre (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: I believe references to print magazines will appear in time.--Wormsie 11:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The guy's an amateur and quite unheard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalEnthusiast (talk • contribs)
Keep if the software is notable & he wrote it, and is known to have wrote it, he's notable. Deleting this is not following the intent of the policy DGG 08:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Croshaw is the most renowned developer of AGS freeware adventure games, is well known amongst the freeware adventure community, has a very large following AND has had his games featured in UK PC Magazines. I think you need to leave him alone. Mark
Keep The above user is right, two of his adventure games (5 days a stranger and 7 days a skeptic) were included on the February 2006 PCGamer UK DVD, issue 158, as 'some of the best' of modern freeware adventure games. -- Catriona McM 16:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Many of yahtzee's games have been on cover disks of print magazines. See http://americangirlscouts.org/agswiki/AGS_in_the_media for a list of general AGS mentions and scans, but especially http://americangirlscouts.org/agswiki/Image:Ags_in_the_media_hyper1.jpg. I have also added 8 references to reviews of his games to the article. --Amaccormack 13:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep This is an interactive online encyclopedia, You should be able to search for and find out about as many things as possible. Whats the point of deleting something that is perfectly informative and relavant? If this and it's related articles were nonsense about a nobody then it's understandable that it should not exist. However Ben Crowshaw is a well known AGS developer with a cult following, I see no reason whatsoever why he should not be listed here for anybody who wants to find out about him to be able to do a search. Anything that says otherwise in your policy is just Bureaucracy and you Mr. Andrew "Power trip" Fader are using that policy to achieve your own ends. 148.197.133.135 13:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Walexei

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" comments didn't address any of the valid policy-based arguments for deletion. Sandstein 05:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 Days a Skeptic

No reliable source to support notability. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep with source. Bfelite 21:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- What source? Andre (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Keep it with one I mean. The more correct action is to add request for sources before AFD anyway. Bfelite
    - I'm not asking for sources for specific claims, I'm saying that I've looked for multiple nontrivial sources, none exist, and therefore the topic is not notable. Andre (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      - If your saying it needs a source then the right action I think is to put a request for it on page. If you mean you want a specific source saying its notable, the existing ones provide that- given the current notability guidlines for video and computer games. Bfelite 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        They certainly do not. The current sources are the official site, a specialized abandonware website, a wiki created by users of the AGS software, and a download page. Of those, only the Abandonia Reloaded link is potentially a notable one, and even that's arguable. We need multiple, non-trivial sources. Andre (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        Most historical games do not have multiple non-trivial web-sources that can be found on the web. A link to a online magazine or paper magazine would be better, I agree. However, im not sure thats grounds for deletion. Bfelite 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        I never said the links have to be on the web. They can be print sources. Also, this game is hardly historical, it's from 2004. Andre (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        I didn't say they had to be on the web either, I agree that print sources would be good. The main issue is if the need for sources means it should be deleted. Articles are usually given various tags rather then AFD when this is the case. Bfelite 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        It's not the need for sources but the need for proof of notability. Andre (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        I would still recomend adding tags for sources rather then AFD. Opinions about notability vary on the wikipedia, as do opinions about what sources establish notablity. If your basis for non-notablity is the quality of sources (not merely that there sources exist), then the solution is to request more sources. Bfelite 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete because of absence of sources, NOT because it fails WP:SOFTWARE, which is not policy or guideline. Voretus ^talk 16:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. First part of a fairly well known series. Jefffire 12:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Lack of reliable sources on a subject is definitely grounds for deletion. It is not pssible to write a proper encyclopedia article that complies with Wikipedia content policies on any subject without basing it upon multiple reliable sources. It seems that the nominator has been diligent in attempting to find reliable sources that could be used as the basis for the article. --Chondrite 19:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: I have played it doesn't that make me a "reliable source"?You wikipedia vampires need to stop picking on people like yahtzee and jerry jackson and get a life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.54.108.146 (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 keep.--Kchase T 06:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5 Days a Stranger

No reliable source to support notability. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete because of absence of sources, NOT because it fails WP:SOFTWARE, which is not policy or guideline. Voretus ^talk 16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - it has been featured in various gaming magazines, though I couldn't name any besides the UK PC Gamer offhand. And a lack of sources is not a good reason to remove an article. BovineBeast 17:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- One gaming magazine is not enough to prove notability and importance. Andre (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Notability and importance are subjective. And it's been mentioned in more than one gaming magazine, I'm sure, since it's reasonably famous, it's just that I can only name one. Plus, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There's no reason we can't have these articles, just because you haven't heard of their topics. BovineBeast 12:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Why don't we delete Facade Computer as well, Andre? It's only been featured in the New York Times, and one newspaper is not enough to prove notability and importance, as you say. --81.79.29.103 01:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Fairly well known and has been featured in a number of publications. Jefffire 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The article does not establish the notability of the subject. For the purposes of Wikipedia, notability is not subjecive. Regarding "a lack of sources is not a good reason to delete an article" -- lack of reliable sources is a perfect reason to delete an article. It is not possible to write a proper encyclopedia article that complies with Wikipedia content policies without basing it on what has been written in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Multiple independent sources have been provided, changing to Neutral-- Chondrite 19:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep added 5 references to reviews/awards of the game to the article --Amaccormack 13:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep a multiple AGS award winner [62] 195.114.94.194 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as referenced.--Kubigula (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was I'm redirecting to High School Musical (album). Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 01:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We're All In This Together

WP:MUSIC, already nominated before with result of merge, POV, need I go on? Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 00:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William heiligmann

No google hits for "William heiligmann" or "Terminal Cancer Survivors International". Hoax or at least non-notable Thue | talk 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Non-Notable person. Bearly541 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 00:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh B-Lesk

No assertion of notability in article. 6 google hits are not suggestive of notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete A7 All those Google hits are either lists of names or Wikipedia and its mirrors. IMDb lists no 2001 production called "Termination" [63]. Original author's handle is "Wikilesk", so appears to be WP:COI too. Absolutely nothing to suggest notability here. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna Jump controversy

This appears to be a hoax, as there are no ghits for it, and no references are given in this article. It's a probable hoax, judging by the very lack of sources given in this article. SunStar Net^talk 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete in the absence of strong WP:CITE. Creator was just indef-blocked as incorrigible vandal. DMacks 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete No sources provided for claims made; article of dubious provenance. (aeropagitica) 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per nom, but also, this video came out in the last month- it shouldn't be too hard to find current news sources, if this actually happened.
Speedy delete per nom and above. Block log reflects creator was blocked for creating a "series of" bogus articles; I don't see the others so I take it the others have been deleted already, and this one should follow. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete no sources and dubious. TSO1D 00:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hey, let's forget about the lack of sources, and the fact that it's almost certainly a hoax. Even if this was incredibly well-referenced, it would still be completely non-notable. -- Kicking222 00:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Madonna's controversies on the slight chance someone might search for it. Otto4711 22:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hoax. NeoJustin 22:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete No cites and this urban jump has been around for years see Parkour and Jump_London so it's as notable as a badly dressed skat3r. Plus this isn't the worst of the Madonna dress-malfunctions (OK I admit it I just love Madonna) Ttiotsw 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a {{db-repost}} of a previously-deleted attack article. (aeropagitica) 22:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Radigan

This appears to be a possible hoax, judging by the lack of ghits for him. No mention in IMDB or any other sources, and nothing here is verifiable. No sources are cited, so this seems to be a hoax by the looks of things. SunStar Net^talk 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as a {{db-repost}} of a previously-deleted attack article. (aeropagitica) 22:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 00:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia Tech Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics

This is almost entirely C&P from various sections of the VT ESM site:

Furthermore, it's a single department at one university. Needs a lot more to prove notability. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 22:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge -- to Virginia Tech. Is a part of VT. Bearly541 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- The reasons I chose to AFD rather than merge are (a) that no other department is mentioned in the overall VT page, nor should they be (that's too deep detail for a top-level article, especially at a school with 60 bachelor's and 140 postgrad programs), and (b) this whole article is C&P copyvio. There's nothing worth salvaging here. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- At the University of Virginia, the departments are EXTENSIVELY linked on one page. You can model the university's webpage after your rival. Bearly541 05:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and merge any salvagable content to parent. Like subsidiaries of big companies, individual departments can be notable enough for a separate article but only if sources support that. For an international angle, see the AFD debate on Department of Law Calcutta University. Mereda 08:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and really... there isn't a need to merge, it is a dept. it already has had the merge tag on it for months... no one did it, just delete it. --Buridan 12:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete without merge. It may fall under speedy-g12 (spam) anyway. Patstuart^talk|edits 13:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Max (pig)

Delete. NN, just like every other celeb family member who hasn't done anything of note. Ckessler 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, in my opinion meets a minimum threshold per NN (enough source material to write a verifiable entry, e.g. in the context of earthquake). That's the Category:Famous pigs exists for. --Brand спойт 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I wouldn't class the pig as famous - it only appeared on here after briefly appearing on TV once. Hardly what you would call famous, or notable enough for an article.

Chrisch 01:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The key threshhold issues are the earthquake case, cameo appearances and mention in Cincinnati Inquirer newspaper. Also, the reason the article apparently fails AfD criteria is that I can't claim that there are few or no reliable published sources independent of the subject. It should be beared in mind that the lifespan of the average pot belly pig is now considered to be 12 - 15 years^{[64]^{, while Max died at 19. --Brand спойт 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)}}

^{Keep This animal has had more press than most people, or celeb family members for that matter. --Oakshade 04:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)}
^{Funny how the press coverage only occured over a couple of days... Heck, lets give everyone and everything an article just for appearing on television! (detect sarcasm) We didn't even know about the pig until it died, and now the media has forgotten about it. And wow, he lived 4 years beyond his life expectancy... so by your definition we should give all cancer patients articles if they live beyond the timeframe biologically expected for them. I stand by my motion to delete this article.}

^{Chrisch 12:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)}

^{The point is not only the TV appearance and the lifespan, see above. Max was mentioned in media for several times before its death. --Brand спойт 13:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)}

^{Delete Does a pig - whose only real achievement was waking someone up - deserve an article??? Now come on, this is an encyclopedia people! Honestly... Johnno18 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)}
^{Keep Max was mentioned regularly prior to his death, often to highlight Clooney's eccentricity, including a recent episode of "American Dad". Few of Clooney's longer interviews failed to mention his novel pet. --Cthulhia 04:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)}
^{Weak Keep Normally, I'd agree the celebrity pets are not notable. However, for whatever reason, this particular one got a reasonable amount of press. Perhaps on the weak side of notability, but close enough for me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)}
Delete. Being owned by a celebrity is no more encyclopedic than being related to one. Flash-in-the-pan story that'll be forgotten in days, if it hasn't already. Agent 86 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, although the article is unsourced and will be tagged as-such. (aeropagitica) 00:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Didacus Jules

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Didacus Jules nn person, apparently created by person as vanity piece (Djules = author), who also removed speedy request SkierRMH 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. He was a senior government official in Grenada (Chief Education Officer and Permanent Secretary for Education, Youth, Culture, Women & Social Affairs in Grenada). Once notable, always notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Synthesizing information from diverse sources is exactly what Wikipedia is not for. Proto::► 15:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Posthuman rhetoric

Original essay, for a term which only gets 15 Google hits (and 1 in Google Books and 5 in Google Scholar). No sign that any significant number of scholars really use this term, and Wikipedia isn't the place to promote its use. Prod tag was added, but removed without comment by the article creator. Calton | Talk 23:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment See Talk:Posthuman rhetoric for the article creator's comment. Pan Dan 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. I'm actually interested in information technology-related rhetoric myself, but there doesn't seem to be evidence that this term is in wide circulation. Some scholars may be excited about this but apparently there isn't much published using this term yet. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for promoting new academic terms or other neologisms - to allows this would lead to conflicts of interest or even spam (see the disputes over Loughborough "colonization" (my term) of an article over at Global city for instance). Bwithh 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup and wikify. This is exactly what Wikipedia is for, to synthesize information from diverse sources. Its not a neologism if its been published, now its a word in use, although obscure. All the more reason to be here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Being published may involve the public coining of a term, but it doesn't turn a neologism into a widely accepted term. Obscure terms may be notable, but not if they're so obscure that they have very little published material to back them up even in their own field. Neologisms constructed from synthesis (or out of whole cloth) are being made all the time - especially in academia, where a main activity is discussing concepts, critiquing them and forming new ones - and publishing them. That's a key way for academics to develop a reputation for oneself or one's research group. Not every published new idea is encyclopedically notable or even significantly influential in its own field however. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of new ideas, original research and neologisms. See WP:NEO. Bwithh 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - I found the article informative, enlightening, and consistent with other articles on Wikipedia related to posthumanism. That the human condition is beginning to blur is just another sign that we are approaching technological singularity. Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of all human knowledge, with Jimbo being quoted on that issue many times. If someone comes across the title of a book with "Posthuman Rhetoric" in it, they may very well look it up on Wikipedia to find out what the heck that means. An article should be waiting here for them. Two of the scholars mentioned are notable in their fields, and all three are educators, which means they have students. If this article can help those students, then I'm all for it. Their reaction might be, "wow, Wikipedia has just about everything!" That's what being encyclopedic is all about. They may also see the value of collaborating through a centralized entity like Wikipedia, and join the community. The Transhumanist 10:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is explicitly not an anything-goes project to include everything as per WP:NOT, just as other encyclopedias are not repositories of every kind of information and concept that has ever been published or mentioned. Rhetorical flourishes by Jimbo doesn't change that. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting fledgling concepts (just as it should not be a platform for promoting fledgling political ideologies or commercial products), nor is it a personalizable educational whiteboard for local groups of students or a database of academic papers. Wariness about spam/marketing abuse of Wikipedia applies to academic articles as much as to commercial articles. Bwithh 03:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment This article needs to be translated into English. Since several people have voted keep, I'll assume that it isn't simply meaningless gibberish, but can someone briefly express this article's claim to notability? BCoates 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be a copy and paste job from someone's class essay or thesis (or possibly a book or class handout) rather than a serious attempt at producing an encyclopedic article Bwithh 03:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the article emphasizes that Posthuman rhetoric is "struggling to define a different kind of rhetoric" - well maybe (or maybe not) there would be a case for having this article once the dust settles and there's a less of a struggle to define the term itself? Wikipedia should not be recruited in this struggle however - its a conflict of interest. Bwithh 03:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

delete no original research and the the proper term is anti-humanist in this case. --Buridan 12:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

well, cyborg would be more of a neutral term perhaps Bwithh 03:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The topic is encyclopedic. If there is some original research, it should just be edited to conform with NOR policies (that includes the name of the article). Maed 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Completely original research essay introducing this new term, which doesn't appear to be used by anyone else according to Bwithh's research. OR cleanup, in this case, means deletion. Sandstein 05:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:OR, WP:NFT, fails the JSTOR test. ~ trialsanderrors 11:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo Power's Top 200 Nintendo Games Ever

Not very important. The only thing that could be added to this article is the actual list of games, but that's unencyclopedic and a copyvio. —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as it is a copyvio. Tarret 00:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TSO1D 00:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio :( I would actually have liked to see this list and think it could be of some use, however if it's breaking copyright then that's that. QuagmireDog 06:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - a reference to the articles this article is about can be added to a "Resources" section of the relevant lists on Wikipedia. See List of Nintendo games. The Transhumanist 10:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: This article was vandalized by GooTuM, so it doesn't have a list.TheListUpdater 22:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC). Wait, I moved it. TheListUpdater 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] List of commercial failures in the automotive industry

[edit] Prince Gomolvilas

[edit] Gravediggaz (other rap group)

[edit] (Life In) The Public Eye

[edit] Jessica Betancourt

[edit] List of Finnish films

[edit] Kevin Barry Cumann (AfD subpage)

[edit] The Shops at Biddeford Crossing

[edit] Turbo island

[edit] Galyna Kyyashko

[edit] LeBuna

[edit] James Gosteli

[edit] PocketGPSWorld.com

[edit] Azn clan

[edit] Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1998 season

[edit] Jason Cherniak

[edit] RCSCC Victory

[edit] RCSCC Captain Vancouver

[edit] 189 PORT AUGUSTA

[edit] Fibonacci number program

[edit] Pete Wilson (wrestler)

[edit] Toru (album)

[edit] Weak man

[edit] Samia Munayirji

[edit] Emotronic

[edit] Tyler divelbiss

[edit] Scientific religions

[edit] Ferrari (Wrestler)

[edit] Mike Miller (wrestler)

[edit] Cindy shi

[edit] Adams County Public Library

[edit] Leonard zimmerman

[edit] Technisoft, Report Manager, and Service Manager

[edit] Duncan's Toy Chest

[edit] Emilia Attias

[edit] List of television personalities

[edit] Google Talk (game)

[edit] Junglebop

[edit] Human-capital Century

[edit] Casey James

[edit] List of wrestlers in movies

[edit] Shane Bower (wrestler)

[edit] List of 1896 films

[edit] (Ordinary) Express (train)

[edit] Operations in Somaliland

[edit] Jonestown, Demerara

[edit] Mediatpress

[edit] Pandagon

[edit] Chandler Public Library

[edit] Just Cause 2

[edit] Wii release data

[edit] Fideli Certa Merces

[edit] List of Call of Duty mods

[edit] Final Fantasy: Dark Chronicles

[edit] Islamic place names in America

[edit] Notable YouTube users

[edit] Politics1.com

[edit] Patrick Kelley

[edit] Marathon series

[edit] Sheffield United F.C. managers

[edit] Shoko Goto

[edit] Lunar Magic

[edit] Zelda tetras curse

[edit] List of (minor) bridges in Toronto

[edit] Nukebidding

[edit] List of Isms

[edit] Star Wars Diplomacy

[edit] Electrokinesis in fiction

[edit] Chenai Zinyuku

[edit] Lake Alice Hospital

[edit] Western Goals Institute

[edit] Morten westermann

[edit] Eternity (game)

[edit] Drum! Magazine

[edit] Monster (Peretti film)

[edit] Fast cars

[edit] Sykklism