Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Colbert Report. Krimpet (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P.K. Winsome

P.K. Winsome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Occassional character on The Colbert Report. "Biography" consists of a series of jokes from the show. No independent, reliable sources are cited and apparently none exist . Lack of sources means that Wikipedia cannot do an article using sourced analysis and explaining the real world implications of this character, as required by Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Deleteper nom. --Guinnog 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless source outside the Colbert Report discussing this character specifically can be provided. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• redirect to the The Colbert Report or a page on minor characters of the show. I accept that sources can be provided to cover this character, but I'm not seeing a reason to have it stand alone. FrozenPurpleCube 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. — Wenli 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Colbert Report per WP:FICT. Minor fictional characters should be listed either in a list article or in the source article, and this character is in the source article. Otto4711 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Colbert Report. Clearly a minor character, therefore, per WP:FICT, belongs in the list of characters there, which the character already is. Expand the one sentence there with some of the content at this article. Goodnightmush^Talk
• Redirect to The Colbert Report, much as a minor recurring character for other television programs would be. (Note: this solution would be better than simply deleting because it seems to discourage recreation, especially by newer editors.) --Kinu ^t/_c 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Colbert Report per WP:FICT. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Colbert Report --St.daniel ^talk 10:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect- to Colbet report also. Retiono Virginian 16:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect in agreement with the reasons listed above. Acalamari 18:11, 27 April 2007 (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. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iter Vehemens ad Necem

Iter Vehemens ad Necem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No coverage in independent, reliable sources after several days of concern. Fails WP:N for notability. Eyrian 03:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete Anything I could say to defend it would only delay the inevitable. No use crying over spilt milk. Such is life. We're all in this together, but we all die alone. Make it quick, I don't want to get depressed abominably more then I already am. What does it matter, the "Violent Road to Death" is always waiting anyway. Down the tubes. --Planetary 04:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this is one of those articles where I feel I know less about the subject after reading it than before. Don't see how it could ever be rescued, and even it it did would fail WP:N - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, ......--Snarius 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion not a vote - if you're arguing keep, you need to give a reason - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's backwards. If there's no reason to delete, then it should be kept. Planetary didn't give a reason to delete, and yours is mostly bullshit. That notability thing was only ever a non-reason. --Snarius 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"That notability thing" isn't a non-reason, it's the primary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, which this article currently fails - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright Snarius here's a more concrete reason to delete: I give up.It's hopeless to resist, stop prolonging the agony, once something gets on AFD,it doesn't come back except under extenuating circumstances, which I don't see here. There's no way for the article to satisfy the(rather arbitrary) notability rules, so it's gotta go. No use moping, in my opinion. --Planetary 21:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Besides also existing in other languages (fr, fi, pl), this game is distributed on netbsd and freebsd, which is a useful way to indicate notability according to the criteria in WP:SOFTWARE. John Vandenberg 08:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not seeing to which criterion of WP:SOFTWARE you are referring. Could you please elaborate? --Kinu ^t/_c 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    "The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, ..." John Vandenberg 01:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Being available for an OS distribution is vastly different than being included with it (otherwise every piece of junk written for Windows would meet the criterion), and I see nothing indicating the latter. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

      FreeBSD and NetBSD actually include this software within their Ports collection. It is not addon software; every installation of these OS's include it as optional software. This would be like Microsoft including it on the CDs it distributes in an optional games pack. It has been included in the FreeBSD codebase since Nov 2005, meaning FreeBSD team members active maintain it. It has been included in NetBSD since Jun 2004. While im at it, it is worth noting it is also included in the Gentoo portage tree since Nov 2005. John Vandenberg 02:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:SOFTWARE:"Note that some distributions, such as Debian, include a particularly large number of packages. The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution." FreeBSD Ports has at least 16,000 packages, NetBSD's pkgsrc over 6,500, and Gentoo's Portage (software) at 20,000+. Phony Saint 04:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If something is notable then sources should be available, existence on other wikis is hardly a reason to keep an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence from WP:RS of notability per WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep When notability cannot be clearly established, the article should be tagged, not deleted. That's policy, which overrides guidlines. Wikipedia would lose almost everything but its FA and GA pages if we handled every article the same way. Tag the article and leave it be. There is no reason to delete it. Matt Brennen 01:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Strong Agree (with comment) (and abstain from voting) - It takes up peoples' time to have to defend others hard work through these votes when many articles could instead be cited for missing notability, or merging or splitting, etc. instead of just deleted.--Remi 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Assume good faith. I can't speak for other editors, but I at least do a little homework and try to find sources, etc., before I make a recommendation one way or another. Yes, notability is not policy, but it's a better barometer than WP:NOHARM. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I did tag it for notability. It got removed a few times, and people refused to add sources. See the article's talk page. --Eyrian 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to Eyrian's comment I say delete. The sources aren't there and it looks like no one is gonna put them there.Shindo9Hikaru 02:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unsourced and unnotable. --RaiderAspect 02:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Comment appears to have been edit conflict deleted; original from here
• Weak keep per John Vandenberg. Weak presence of notability, but I'll take that. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 03:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced, no assertion of notability beyond how it's distributed, and this has been demonstrated to be an unreliable assertion of notability. DarkSaber2k 09:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 09:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if there are no sources, and as yet I see none.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment There are actually four sources --St.daniel ^talk 11:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your right. The official site, an unofficial wiki site and two forums. All highly unreliable sources. DarkSaber2k 11:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's also this. Editor's choice, plus an articulate appraisal. Stammer 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I would change my vote if I could find out how many players the game has.
• Quibble. I'd rather translate it as "Violent Journey to Death". Stammer 12:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: A directed Google search turns up 150 unique hits [1], more than I'd expected, and some of them look good. If the article had any decent independent sources, my vote would change ... but this is a three-year-old article. No excuses. Rather than screaming at the injustice of deletion policy, perhaps Keep proponents could ... mmm, source the article?  RGTraynor  14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Eyrian and RGTraynor. If those who are interested in the topic refuse to add sources and remove notability tags (and the rest of us don't care enough to improve it) when will this ever get better? 140.247.248.50 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Oops, not signed in: Calliopejen1 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep- It may have assertion of notability but I have never heard of it. Does meetWP:SOFTWARE, but I don't think 9/10 people have heard of it. Retiono Virginian 16:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Gee, let's see...Fails the mandatory policy of attibution, the general policy on notability and it's specific subsection of notability concerning software. Game over. NeoFreak 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)software
• 'Weak Keep' - It seems to cross the minimum threshhold of WP:SOFTWARE and lack of attention doesn't in itself indicate failure of WP:N. I would suggest, however, that the advocates for the article try to address the concerns expressed by the other editors with all speed if they truly want to save it. Eggishorn 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Fails WP:RS though. --RaiderAspect 14:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's granted the tiniest sliver of notability under WP:SOFTWARE, being one of thousands of pieces of software included with those OSes. (See my note above; 1 out of 16,000 is not a good ratio.) But, WP:SOFTWARE isn't an official notability guideline, and the article's subject doesn't meet any other relevant notability guidelines. Phony Saint 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This has gotten a lot more attention then I thought. Looks like it won't go down without a fight, but if the fight is long enough, an admin will delete it out of spite, I'm quite sure.--Planetary 02:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

With keeps like yours, who needs deletes? Stammer 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unsourced, unnotable, low quality, with "keep" arguments composed mostly of fanboys who are convinced this is some kind of battle. All the things we shouldn't have in a game article.Wokinlone 02:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough for inclusion into an encyclopedia. Captain panda 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are a few reviews in somewhat notable places: Home of the Underdogs and http://www.gamehippo.com --Hexii 09:40, 1 May 2007 (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 (tagged for cleanup). This is a non-admin close. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synapse Films

Synapse Films (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted. Not enough reliable Google hits to judge notability. Written as an advertisement. soum (0_o) 04:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep many films that appear to be popular in a movie subculture. In a current googlenews search I get 5 hits about its success and movies[2][3] plus decent amount of ghits. Notable, and not spam. Arbustoo 05:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless better sourced IMDB and fansites are not a source for notability, and a regional paper isn't enough. I think there might possibly be reviews, but you've got to find them. DGG 03:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Arbustoo. Clearly they have produced notable works. Tag as an {{ad}} or fix. John Vandenberg 09:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete as it doesn't seem very notable, but may be better if better sourced and rewritten. — Wenli 01:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The Fangoria source (number 2) above plus this second Fangoria source are sufficient to convince me that the company has sufficient notability. It does need to be re-written to be less adverspammy and must be completely sourced. Otto4711 01:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep --Remi 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: AfD is not a vote. Please qualify your statement with "why." --Kinu ^t/_c 01:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like an advert, but definitely can be improved. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 03:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is a bit spammy and needs to be properly referenced, but this is a well-known DVD label, which has a good amount of non-trivial coverage.[4] [5] In addition, a Google search for synapse dvd finds hundreds of reviews for the company's products (DVD's). DVDVerdict.com alone seems to have reviewed 33 of them.[6] Prolog 07:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rewrite Needs serious rewriting but notabality is certainly established. --St.daniel ^talk 11:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and a prediction. Based on spammy tone and redlinks, there will soon appear articles on each of the principals of this company, and each movie's article will soon contain a link to this company. As far as the hundreds of reviews mentioned above, they are reviews of the movies, which are not a creation of the company unless Synapse has changed them somehow, they are just selling them. --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 11:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. DVD reviews almost always contain either a review or a summary of the film too, but these still are DVD reviews. Anyway, even without these, notability has been established per WP:CORP. Prolog 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Although not mentioned in the article, Synapse do produce documentaries on underground movies along with the likes of Anchor Bay and Blue Underground. As for the redlinks, I agree that the owners of the of the company are not notable enough to have articles on themselves and therefore sould be de-linked, however Document Of The Dead is a reasonable well known documentary on the making of Dawn Of The Dead. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Passes WP:CORP, properly sourced. I don't believe there's anything in deletion policy suggesting that speculation over an article's potential for unencyclopedic forks represents valid grounds to delete it.  RGTraynor  14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- meets WP:CORP but could do with some tidying up. Retiono Virginian 16:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to meet WP:CORP IMHO. mako (talk•contribs) 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Although relatively unknown in mainstream movie fan circles, Synapse are popular with the fans of the cult movie circuit. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 14:31, 1 May 2007 (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. The fate of the merged content in the target article is left to editorial discretion. This is a non-admin closure. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Synapse Films releases

List of Synapse Films releases (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DIR; a list of DVD releases from a DVD company. Possibly created just to advertize their available DVDs as Synapse Films reads a bit like an advert. Masaruemoto 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete better as a category. Arbustoo 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the list includes many red links that are useful to start the articles, or help a searcher find out more about a movie they have borrowed. John Vandenberg 07:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I see no reason why this list couldn't be merged into Synapse Films.Chunky Rice 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment; there may be some confusion about who Synapse Films are. They are not a production company, or a studio, they are merely a DVD distributor, so their connection with most of these titles is minimal. Masaruemoto 02:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. This is a list comprised of items that are loosely associated to each other by virtue of having been released by a particular distributor. Otto4711 01:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep --Remi 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. A category, perhaps? Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is currently a consensus against having films categorized by their DVD distributor, as it is overcategorization. Such categories for The Criterion Collection have been repeatedly deleted. Prolog 07:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Synapse Films. Release list is useful information about a DVD label, but I don't see why it would need a separate article. Prolog 07:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge Delete per sources. But could merge to Synapse Films. --St.daniel ^talk 11:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree that the Synapse Films article is notable, but especially since it is short, there is no conceivable reason why it requires a separate film list.  RGTraynor  14:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Synapse films -- at least until the two sections outgrow one article. mako (talk•contribs) 17:16, 27 April 2007 (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. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sassas

Sassas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be a notable organisation. No sources, or hint of them on google. Contested prod. MER-C 04:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Super duper delete Wow, these folks had the audacity to link to Youtube and Myspace! Ha ha. YechielMan 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The nom's assertion is incorrect. "Society for the Activation of Social Space through Art and Sound" on Google has plenty of hits. John Vandenberg 09:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep if fully sourced. perhaps the Reliable reviews and other sources should be examined to see if there are some selected ones that can go on the page itself. DGG 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep --Remi 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: And your reasoning would be... ? --Kinu ^t/_c 02:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agree that it needs to be sourced, but we have loads of otherwise serviceable articles that need citations. Dppowell 03:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs to be better sourced. MySpace and YouTube are not reliable sources. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but please rename the article SASSAS or, better yet, the full name of the organization. Of course, the article could be cleaned up as well. mako (talk•contribs) 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the review external link convinced me they are notable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment So far I see alot of Keep "if sourced". Well, these are Delete "as is" votes. NeoFreak 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails the mandatory inclusion policies of both attribution and notability. NeoFreak 22:47, 27 April 2007 (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 16:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Initial D real-life locations and popularity

Initial D real-life locations and popularity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Rather lengthy article about the real-life and pop-culture references in a manga series. Article is unsourced and is full of original research. Fails WP:A. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Otto4711 01:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. After a relist still only a "per nom" vote... Seems to be primarily WP:OR and and anything that isn't is still unsourced. Looks to me like a failure of WP:ATT. Goodnightmush^Talk 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• AFAIK, "per nom" indicates that I agree with the reasoning of the nominator. I suppose I could re-type everything the nominator said but that seems kind of pointless. Otto4711 02:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I must vote since it is all original research. However it was an interesting article. Publish it somewhere else. Steve Dufour 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the nominator. Acalamari 18:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OR. C56C 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR and against the spirit of WP:FICT.-- danntm ^T _C 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. From the very start, significant parts of the article are original research. In addition, by noting multiple insignificant occurences of "Initial D" (or something similar to it), the article becomes a repository for trivia (see WP:AVTRIV). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:48, 2 May 2007 (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. People seem willing to clean this up and add refs.. John Reaves (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seburo

Seburo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article fails to meet the criterion "The subject of the article is also the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works. Masamune Shirow has been the only referenced source in this article, who was also the creator of the imaginary small-arms manufacturer. For these reasons, I am requesting that this article be deleted. ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 16:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete The nominator is undoubtedly correct that nobody outside the manga universe is likely to have said anything on the subject. The problem is that you can take this argument to an extreme - after all, Quidditch is arguably not relevant outside the Harry Potter universe, though external sources have mentioned it. I hope an expert on the subject can clarify the notability issue. YechielMan 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep per the Quidditch comparison, as the article covers a topic which appears in just about all the incarnations of the Ghost in the Shell franchise. Anville 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I call your attention to the two external links, which are non-shirow references. 'Seburo' has a suprisingly large presence outside of Shirow's universe, including game mods, Shadowrun. and most notably Second life. I don't really want to try the Pokemon defense on this and I'm trying to avoid WP:ILIKEIT, but I think the broad adoption of Seburo makes it more notable than Quidditch, and notable enough to survive the AfD -- at least on these grounds. The external references seem sufficient to assert notability as per WP:FICT. --Mdwyer 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• By all means, place those references in the corresponding section in the article. If those works would have been included in it at the time I nommed the article, I probably wouldn't have (if the sources were reliable and in English, that is). ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm embarassed to say that I don't know how to do references correctly, and haven't taken the time to learn, yet. I try to figure it out tonight. --Mdwyer 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• comment I'd be willing to help with adding refs if they exist, though I must admit I'm an avid shadowrun fan and I'm not sure where the reference is, excepting its use as a Japanese name (Suburo Renraku, founder of Renraku Computer Systems in the game if I recall correctly). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wintermut3 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

• Keep WP:Anime covers things such as this. It is also a notable article. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's under the scope of a wikiproject is hardly reason to keep the article. As to your asertion of notability? Why exactly do you think that? I must admit I'm unconvinced by such references as "clearly influenced" (clear to whom? is the verifiable?) Wintermut3 07:14, 28 April 2007 (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. John Reaves (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Versatile

Versatile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page currently has two articles: one is a dictionary definition of the work Versatile (Wikipedia is not a dictionary) and the other is for a tractor brand with no notability established. - BierHerr 15:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note I boldly removed the dicdef. No opinion on the corporation. YechielMan 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Top and bottom in sex and BDSM. The tractor company does not appear to be notable. Otto4711 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Quick scan of ghits suggests it's a notable brand name. Dppowell 03:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis. That solution would solve the problem. 149.89.1.32 17:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If by "solve the problem" you mean "create a nonsensical redirect", then yes. But no. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Please do not strike the comments of other editors, even if you consider them "bad" or ill-advised. The closing admin will judge the merits of the arguments and will act accordingly. I have reverted your action. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Eh, fair enough I guess. It just struck me as an entirely bad-faith vote intended only to confuse the situation. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
        • And you're probably right ... it's just disruption (check the IP's other recent edits). Since the suggestion makes no sense, it will just be ignored (as numbers are not the most important thing in an AfD). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No complaint against the tractor brand, but I think it would be strange if people searching versatile on wikipedia ended up reading about a tractor. Eusebeus 06:42, 3 May 2007 (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 and move to Timothy Swanson. This is a non-admin closure. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Swanson

Tim Swanson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non notable college professor. --Адам12901 ^T/_C 20:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article fails to elucidate why Swanson is more notable than your average professor. YechielMan 02:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep sure it does, the average professor does not come anywhere near the status of the holder of a named chair at an an internationally famous research university such as University College,London. (and UK named chairs are fewer and even more prestigious than the US ones.). If there's 5000 UK university teachers of economics (a guess) this would put him in the top 1%. There are undoubtedly major publications to add, so the article is still a stub, but with a position like that the notability is certain and the publications will certainly be there. That's why people get such positions. DGG 05:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I think the nomination here comes from a confusion between the different meanings of "Professor" in British & American English. In the UK, Professor is the highest rung on the academic ladder, and a Professorship at the largest university in the country is definitely N — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I am convinced by his title that he could be notable, but the article is in an embarrassingly stubby state and has not been improved over the course of the AfD. For someone to have reached this point, it seems very likely that a lot more could be said about him. —David Eppstein 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Ditto others. --Remi 01:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Any University Professor holding the chair of a department at a prestigious University is notable. Jazznutuva 11:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. "Professor Swanson currently holds the Chair in Law & Economics at University College London". That's notable. The article should list some or all of his publications and it doesn't, but I think you can assume he didn't get a job as prestigious as that without any. BTLizard 11:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable in his field, holding a Chair at UCL implies that. I've added some publications but if anyone has access to a decent academic database I'm sure they'll find more. Madmedea 14:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely notable. mako (talk•contribs) 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per BTLizard. matt91486 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• comment JStor, doing a search of 75 journals (targeted search of Law, Economics, Finance, Statistical research, Population studies and African-American Studies) has no hits for this guy, though JStor has a 2-year lag in availibility, you'd expect a chair to have published more widely than simply the last 2 years in his field(s) of specialty. He's mentioned on Lexis Legal Research only in the abstract of a symposium actually written by Daniel H. Cole in that he'll be presenting a paper on the conservation of biological resorces in 'legal regimes'. For someone who's supposedly a notable professor and chair, his publications in reputable journals (those included in Lexis/Nexis and JStor) seem to be pretty thin. On the other hand symposium inclusion and citation in other works may speak to notability. I admit I was hoping for a 'slam dunk' keep case when I went on JStor and Lexis, to compare, a search for the chair of my own department at University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee shows 5 'highly relevant' hits on JStor, 7 on Lexis/Nexis and 313 on Google Scholar (plus 125 more without his middle initial).Wintermut3 22:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and comment: hits go up substantially if you search for "Timothy Swanson" instead of "Tim Swanson." A book of his was reviewed in The Economic Journal, Vol. 111, No. 475, and called "important" (the review seems more interested in listing the contents than assessing their impact pro or con). BTW - UCL Economics department does seem to use Professor in the American sense, but it's still more notable than average. --Myke Cuthbert 23:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• confirmation Indeed searching for his full name gives far more hits on both JStor and Lexis/Nexis. I kinda dropped the ball there, since most people do publish under their full names. In light of that, he does appear to be substantially notable for his publications. Wintermut3 01:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good argument for for moving this page from Tim to Timothy Swanson once the AfD is over, since that's what he has chosen to publish under and its his publications that make him notable. --Myke Cuthbert 02:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

keep and move Good point Mscuthbert. On further review of publications I can definately say there are enough hits on google scholar and in publication databases that are relevant (IE pertaining to THIS Timothy Swanson) to establish him as a notable professor above and beyond being a named academic chair at a notable university, which in and of itself conveys notability. All that added together makes me confident enough to lodge a firm 'keep' vote, if the page is moved to the name that he publishes under. Wintermut3 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notable academic. Metamagician3000 23:24, 29 April 2007 (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 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Piekos

James Piekos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

He may be a radio presenter, but there is nothing in the article to indicate he meets WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. However, the facts mentioned in the article are verifiable, per Viking FM's website. I just think he may not meet the criteria mentioned above. --SunStar Net ^talk 22:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge and delete. Merge to 96.9_Viking_FM. Sancho 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete ...or merge, but not every two-bit radio personality in the world needs an article. Dppowell 03:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above - fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 06:42, 3 May 2007 (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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parks Junior High School

Parks Junior High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable junior high school Guroadrunner 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No signs of notability, no references. TJ Spyke 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - really struggling to find anything N about this one. "Lunch consists of a burrito, Papa Johns Pizza, Chinese Food, hamburger, chicken sandwich, Monzerella sticks, fried chicken or a Subway Sandwich" - good to see CA schools are serving a nice balanced diet — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability and no references. — Wenli 01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lunch options?! Where'd that come from?Shindo9Hikaru 02:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Article made explicit claims of notability and appropriate references have been added to support the claim. The school has been recognized twice by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, the nation's highest award for a school. Non-encyclopedic content mentioned above has been removed. It's amazing what can be accomplished when your goal is to improve articles rather than just get rid of them. I sincerely hope that those individuals who have already participated will reconsider their votes in light of the explicitly supported claim of notability. Alansohn 04:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Prior to your edit the article made no "explicit claim to notability" whatsoever - the only claims in the version which was nominated were "The Parks Instrumental Band and String Orchestra are great music programs" (twice), "The Parks volleyball team took 2nd in the county finals in 2005", and "the advanced choir group has performed at festivals and has received prestigious awards". While I do believe we ought to have articles on most high schools, I'm still not convinced there's anything about this particular junior high school to pass WP:ORG. Of the four references added, two are about other schools & don't mention this school once, while the other two are both just laundry lists of schools with nothing to single this one out — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Alansohn. Parts of the article are unencyclopaedic doesn't mean we have to delete the entire article. Article looks decent enough after the edits done by Alansohn although I don't mind if A day at Parks and Extra-Curricular Activities sections go too. - TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 06:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Chop away... Alansohn 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps some of the usual defenders of school articles could go to WP:NOTE and start a discussion to establish notability guidelines for schools such as the Blue Ribbon program mentioned above. I see the same for and against arguments here for most every nom. In my opinion this is a waste of our time and effort. I personally think very few schools are notable but in the absence of guidelines to use, what other basis is there for a !vote? I just read that 85% of school AfD's result in no consensus or keep, so establish some guidelines and lets stop wasting time and effort. If the end result is that all schools are notable, so be it, I disagree but we all have better things to do, including the supporters.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 11:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply We desperately need to find some agreement on what constitutes notability for schools. After two failed efforts at WP:SCHOOLS, we only seem further apart on finding any middle ground. While I believe that most elementary or junior highs would have a great deal of trouble providing sources to establish notability, most high schools would have no trouble finding appropriate sources to justify retention. Alansohn 11:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply - I strongly agree. I personally feel that secondary schools or their equivalents are almost always N as they generally have a significant impact on both their community and their students, whilst primary schools, junior highs etc don't, but am well aware this is purely a subjective view. I also agree the current situation wastes everyone's time rehashing the same debate. Also, applying WP:ORG to schools - the closest we have to a current criteria - exacerbates systemic bias since schools in the US & Canada are far more likely to have web sources than those elsewhere — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the above desire to establish a clear guideline for notability. Personally, I feel the standard set on the German and French wikis (i.a.) are good - i.e. schools considered as such are non-notable. As is the case here. I respect that some will disagree with that standard, which is of course the ongoing source of acrimony (no names) in these debates stretching back 3 years now. Eusebeus 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply The article makes explicit claims of notability, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:V, WP:NN. I concur on the need for notability standards, but as far as this particular one goes, this Blue Ribbon School citation - which is waved as prima facie evidence of notability - gets pulled out on damn near every junior high school AfD. I'm coming to believe that the award is nowhere remotely close to being as notable as all of that.  RGTraynor  15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Are you claiming that you have been unable to click on the links provided to verify the sources provided? Are any schools notable? This is just a long-winded version of the unacceptable, Just not notable. Refer to a genuine Wikipedia policy, not your personal whims and arbitrary beliefs. Alansohn 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I am claiming that those links constitute trivial mentions, and are not sources discussing the schools at any length that meets policy requirements.  RGTraynor  01:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't seem any more notable than any most other high schools nominated for deletion. Acalamari 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply The article makes an explicit claim of notability, having been recognized twice as a Blue Ribbon school, the highest honor an American schol can receive. That puts it among a group of about one schools in a thousand nationwide. Alansohn 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That would be a credible argument, except how come about three schools out of four up for AfD suddenly have these Blue Ribbon citations spring up? What's your source for the one in a thousand figure?  RGTraynor  01:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, because of clear signs of notability. --24.154.173.243 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom --TREYWiki 01:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MetsFan76 02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for two blue ribbons per WP:N. FWIW, I don't think the school +s and -s are that far apart at the moment, as many of the recent school AfDs have had good consensus. There will always be a minority of +++s and ---s who refuse to accept any reasonable compromise. While their input is valid, I don't think we should let them prevent the community as a whole from reaching some kind of middle ground. --Butseriouslyfolks
• Delete per everyone above. Lacks notability. Arbustoo 05:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable school. Sorry. Lankiveil 10:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
• Keep.Award winning school. Nice article with good references. --JJay 12:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The trivial parts of the article have been removed (see [7]). As for notability, the school is a Blue Ribbon school ... placing it in the top 10% of schools in California. Surely a nationally-recognised school can be considered notable. Most of the arguments to delete (including the nom's) so far have consisted of claims that it is "just not notable" without any explanation or justification. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:55, 2 May 2007 (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. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Double (Mariners)

The Double (Mariners) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seattle Mariners sports trivia. A whole lot of asserted notability is burdened on a single play, but no evidence to back it up. What's next, "The Bunt (Sacramento River Cats)"? ~ trialsanderrors 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Based on the references provided, neither of the sources even refer to it by this title (the two footnotes which use the citations seem like afterthoughts that have little to nothing to do with said play). From a cursory search, I find nothing that does. Unless it can be properly sourced such that notable media have referred to it as such, this is not encyclopedic. The Catch it ain't. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As with the recently deleted "Immaculate Rejection" article, this is a neologism without the sourcing to demonstrate that it has gained any traction as a sports or slang term. Individual plays within a game or sport are almost never notable and this is no exception. Otto4711 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As the article stands now, it is not fit for Wikipedia. However, if you give me a month, the I think I can transform this article such that it is fit for Wikipedia. For instance, I've already found one article in a major newspaper referring to the play as "The Double" (it took about 15 seconds to find that article). If I am unable to bring the article up to standards, then I will bring it up for AfD again myself. Pablothegreat85 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Changed my vote to delete. See below. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The AfD runs for five days; that should be sufficient time for multiple editors to come up with multiple nontrivial sources. As for the newspaper link, it's definitely better than nothing, but at the same time, it seems somewhat trivial. The title "The Double" in the story might just be creative headlining, seeing as how the story doesn't refer to it as "The Double" (in so many words) once; it would be akin to claiming that (from the same story) "The quiet man" is one of Martinez's nicknames. It's a start though... --Kinu ^t/_c 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply I don't have time right now to re-write the article (I'm working on my thesis), so that's why I need a little extra time. More reliable sources referring to it as "The Double" are here, here, here, and here. Pablothegreat85 03:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Reluctantly, I have to change my vote to delete (I am a Mariners fan). I really can't find any sources about the term (as opposed to using the term). Pablothegreat85 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - note that per WP:NEO "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." Otto4711 03:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't exactly a Shot heard 'round the world. It is already mentioned in the Mariners' article under their history, which is abundantly sufficient. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:V, WP:NN. Every team that just barely makes the playoffs in every sport does so because of some play or another. I'm awaiting some serious sorting for the assertions that this one double saved professional baseball in Seattle or that most Mariners' fans recall it vividly to this day, and I admit I'm hugely skeptical.  RGTraynor  16:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This play occurred after the Mariners had already made the playoffs. As a Mariners fan, I can say that in did save pro baseball in Seattle and most Mariners fans recall it vividly. I don't think that's the problem with this article. The problem is that the article asserts that the play is called "The Double" in the article, but there are too few reliable sources referring to it as "The Double." Pablo 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Generally, our inclusion criterion for individual sports moments is that they make a couple of "key moments in baseball history" lists. If the event is only relevant to the Mariners franchise it's sufficient to cover it in the Mariners article (as it is now). Only if it transcendents franchise history it makes sense to single it out in an individual article. ~ trialsanderrors 02:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply I'm not arguing that it should have its own article. Pablo 02:59, 28 April 2007 (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 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle Bible College

Seattle Bible College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnotable, non-accredited institution. Was nominated in November as Vanispamcruftisement, and ended with no consensus (two keeps, three deletes). Its been on wikipedia four for years with few edits. Until I researched it a few days ago, the article didn't even mention its lack of accreditation.Arbustoo 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:ORG. Not accredited, lacks WP:RS, and notability. Arbustoo 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A lack of accreditation is not abnormal for bible colleges. The schools is reasonably large and well known within the Christian community in Seattle. The article needs improved references and more work but it satisifed WP:ORG and is notable. Provide sources, don't delete it. mako (talk•contribs) 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article was created in April 2003, which is over 4 years ago. If it is so "well-known" why hasn't it been expanded or sourced in the last four years? Offer proof for your claims that is passes ORG. Arbustoo 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not adequately notable jamesgibbon 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the keeper's comments are equally true of traffic schools, but it still doesn't make them notable. Carlossuarez46 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve - Should be better sourced, but it appears to be somewhat notable, 3520 ghits, 17 gnews archive hits. - Crockspot 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As mentioned before Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test and telling how many hits is a pointless exercise. This article has been on wikipedia for FOUR YEARS. Explain HOW it is notable NOT how many hits at google you found. Arbustoo 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been relisted for more opinions. Arbustoo 02:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N (not even alleged so actually could be speedied) and WP:V not one source. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find any non-trivial independent sources as required by WP:N. News archive stories on Google News and LexisNexis are mainly concerned with the trial of a driver who killed a student at the College, and don't give significant coverage to the college itself. EALacey 09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not a single source indicating that this is a notable institution. Lankiveil 09:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. My concern here is not that the article is four years old, it's that during these four years, nobody has gone and actually improved the article, save for one spammer who modified the article early this or late last year. If that's the case, there's probably no interest. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The article doesn't make compelling notability claims, and sinc it is practically abandoned it's unlikely it'll ever get any. Coren 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If it has been online for four years, and STILL looks like a crappy stub, DELETE. Jmlk17 03:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability. I do not view the article's age or the number of times it has been edited to be in any way relevant to the notability of the subject. Just as inclusion is not an indicator of notability, inactivity is not an indicator of non-notability. That said, the article does not prove the topic's notability and I was unable to find secondary sources about the College. The 17 Google News hits are mostly about present/former students of the College (especially one who was killed in a motorcycle accident). As for the regular Google hits (2200 excluding Wikipedia mirrors), most seem to be trivial directory entries. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:01, 2 May 2007 (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 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnotable, non-accredited institution. 768 ghits, and no gnews hits. Arbustoo 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:ORG. Arbustoo 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: DBTS is one of the few independent fundamental Baptist schools of higher education that have been independent and government accredited nationwide, let alone in Michigan. Yes, there are places like Bob Jones and Pensacola, but smaller independent seminaries with definite ties to a "father" local church are rare. - NDCompuGeek 03:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment User:NDCompuGeek created the article, but failed to mention that. He also said it is "accredited," but it is not, according to the United States Department of Education. What's your sourcing? Accreditation or not it doesn't matter, where are some sources that show this pass WP:ORG? Arbustoo 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Yes, I started the article, from one of the "needed articles" lists on some project - sorry, I forgot which project. As for accreditation, I was under the impression that it is MDOE accredited. I looked it up, and I guess it isnt, so I stand corrected - and I apoligize. Even without accreditation though, I still vote keep.

On a side note, why the personal venomous attack? It's only an AFD.... If someone wanted to gather further information about the article, the "history" link is only a few clicks away. I don't see how it mattered to my vote - it's not like I "failed to mention that" on purpose or with some agenda or something.... - NDCompuGeek 05:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No personal attack. 1) You said it was accredited, but its not, and 2) you didn't mention your connection to it. It doesn't matter for the "vote" per se, but it is an important part to divulge. You still haven't supplied evidence for notability. Arbustoo 06:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as described above, school has notable characteristics. besides, any AfD that uses "non-accredited" as a "reason" for deletion has my keep vote. Alansohn 05:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of notability? --Butseriouslyfolks 03:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, any degree-granting institution is "notable"Chickenboner 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Described as what? What significance? What sources? I showed the creator of the page, NDCompuGeek, to be factually wrong-- it is not accredited, but the creator of the page claims it is. What sources are you basing "keep" on? Arbustoo 05:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • As an "independent fundamental Baptist schools" in Michigan. You know full well that ghits and gnews hits are invalid justifications for deletion, and I would strongly suggest reading Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test, as it seems clear that you have never read that section, or any of the rest of the article, before. I know that you have an issue with "non-accredited institution" but use of the fact as part of a nomination is inexcusable. Alansohn 05:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • What part of fails WP:ORG is confusing? Before the word "unaccredited" appears the word is "unnotable." If it was accredited, it would be an automatic keep in my book. It is not and thus was mentioned upfront. The flipside is if I failed to mention it was not accredited I'd be criticized for it, and not offering important details about this place. By the way, I've created several articles about schools that aren't accredited.
      • Did you read Google Test? Part of it reads, a gtest "be useful as a negative test," but not to claim "a large number of hits" makes "a subject notable."
      • I'm going to ask again: What significance? What sources? I showed the creator who's claims you based your vote on, NDCompuGeek, to be factually wrong-- it is not accredited. What sources are you basing "keep" on?Arbustoo 06:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I looked through the first few pages of ghits and can't find any source that is independent and substantial. It may exist, it may or may not be notable, but if there are no sources what is the basis for the article? --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Unlike Alansohn, I am quite comfy with the use of accreditation and relative G-hits as gauges of the notability of a college and wonder what the fuss is about; despite his disagreement, there is nothing "invalid" or "inexcusable" about either position. What is black-letter policy on Wikipedia, however, is the absolute, irreducible requirement that all articles contain reliable, independent, third-party sources which are more than trivial mentions. Without those sources, any argument that colleges should be notable absent accreditation is moot.  RGTraynor  16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Can you point me to the relevant Wikipedia policy that requires deletion of unaccredited schools, or are you just making this one up? Alansohn 19:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There are few Wikipedia policies requiring the deletion of anything, so you might as well put that straw man away. That being said, since "school has notable characteristics" was the justification for your Keep !vote in defiance of WP:V, you admit that there are notability standards for such institutions beyond WP:V; heck, your general position that all high schools are fundamentally notable is of a piece with that. Formal accreditation is generally accepted in the academic world as one of the fundamentals of notability, even by seminaries. You may not agree, and that's your privilege, but you don't get to reject black-letter policy in one moment and in the next deride people because - like yours - their argument isn't explicit black-letter policy.  RGTraynor  19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • As long as we acknowldge that there is absolutely no Wikipedia policy that supports your original research that accreditation confers notability, while non-accreditation makes a school non-notable. As such, your vote is invalid and should be ignored.Alansohn 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
        • WHOA you just broke WP:CIVIL. How about this Alansohn, you insert sources that demonstrate notability, which justifies a reason for inclusion. The burden of proof belongs to those who want to keep the article because one cannot prove a negative. You prove WP:NOTE and I'll withdraw the afd, but until then see WP:DICK. Arbustoo 01:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Despite the nominator's claim, there are actually nine gnews archive hits since 1980. Is that not multiple and non-trivial enough to meet WP:ORG? Crockspot 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Further A lexis nexis search for all available dates returns 500 news hits. - Crockspot 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: No. I've just looked at each and every one of those nine hits, and all of them are trivial mentions: Soandso got his degree there, Suchandsuch was a teacher there. Not a single one of them, as WP:V requires, are about the school. If you come up with any articles that are genuinely about the school, let us know.  RGTraynor  17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've added a 500 hit return from Lexis Nexis. Don't have time to run through them now though. - Crockspot 17:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Correction: LexisNexis apparently does not recognize quotes in the normal search, so I reran it advanced, only 11 hits total. However, this is still substantially more hits than the "zero" claimed in the nomination. - Crockspot 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• That link of the "11 hits" does not work; it comes up as "The credentials for this user were either missing or invalid." I just searched lexis-nexis (with the advance search feature). It searches 20,000 news sources over the last 40 years and it came up with ONLY 11 hits. They are all trival under headlines like: "Faith notes," two articles about "DEATH NOTICES," and "Balch Springs pool to celebrate summer opening today with a Splash."
  • They are ALL trival. I don't see how you can honestly vote "keep" let alone "strong keep." Based on that search of 20,000 sources, this really should be deleted. No notability: not even descent local coverage. --C56C 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See below for changed vote and suggestion. - Crockspot 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete absolutely lacking in RS. --C56C 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, accredited institution or not, their periodical, the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal published since spring 1996, seems to be found in a number of libraries and gets quite a few ghits. First search Worldcat carries over 150 articles from the journal. The periodical is notable, so is the school. No wikipedia policy or guideline excludes non-accredited schools. --Dual Freq 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The journal is $10.00 for two years or you can get free downloads at their website. Not including the seminary itself the journal appears to be in three schools, and only on a CD. As Alansohn, who voted keep above explained, google hits do not equate with popularity, but even that is less than 800 hits many of which are on people's resumes, wikipedia, and ie not WP:RS to show notability. Is that the best reason for keeping it? Three schools have a journal of theirs on CD, whose articles are for free online? To argue the periodical is notable, how widespread is it (other than the three CDs at libraries or the free downloads)? Arbustoo 05:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Worldcat database said 30 libraries, so at least that many. As for the journal, annual publication $10 for 2 years thats $5 per issue. The New England Journal of medicine says $149 for 52 issues, that's $2.86 per issue. I'm not sure how the subscription cost matters, unless you think it is notable that they charge more than the NJM for a subscription. --Dual Freq 05:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Three libraries have a complete serial titled Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal. Others like "McAlister Library" have some issues, but stopped their subcription in 2000. For the record "New England Journal of medicine" has 1,610,000 ghits and "Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal" has 720 (including wikipedia). One would think that such a popular journal, as you claim, would break at least 1,000 google hits. Arbustoo 06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see where you get the number 3, the page you linked shows 26 and the Firstsearch db I can't link to says 30. --Dual Freq 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• The link I have has only 4 (including Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary itself). I searched by serial to get the libraries that has the whole collection. 26 appears to be the libraries that contain parts or all of the serial including digtial only collections and missing collections (If you click on some of the libraries, while it appears it in their catalog the issues come up as "missing"). Arbustoo 06:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable, with a long history. --Jason Gastrich 06:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC))This user now indefinitely blocked for sockpuppeting

It should be noted that this user was blocked under at least one sockpuppet at the time of this post. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Steven_Taylor. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• • An AFD is a discussion not a vote. What part of WP:ORG or WP:CORP does this meet? Arbustoo 06:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm happy to discuss. Your primary concerns seem to be that you think it's unnotable (you don't really say why, though) and that it is unaccredited. I think it's notable[8], as it has been around for over 25 years. Secondly, accreditation isn't critical to Christian universities and shouldn't factor in much when it comes to whether or not a school should have a Wikipedia article. --Jason Gastrich 06:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • 1) Why did you link to a google search for Detroit Baptist Seminary (note: without quotes)? Search for "Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary" in quotes it brings up ONLY 810 ghits. Moreover, ghits do not prove notability. 2) Accreditation has nothing to do with voting against. 3) How does this meet WP:ORG or WP:CORP? Arbustoo 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I linked it because it shows that they have a valid address linked to Google, as other businesses and universities do. I'm not going to get into an argument with you and it seems that you're quite passionate about this issue. I'll study WP:ORG and consider contributing more to this page. Thanks, --Jason Gastrich 06:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Typing in Detroit Baptist Seminary (with no quotes) instead of "Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary" to get an address proves what? You can get a valid address at its official website. I don't understand your point. Arbustoo 06:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
            • It's just an interesting and helpful fact that some may have overlooked. If you type "Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary" it doesn't come up. If you type "Detroit Baptist Seminary" it does. A map with their address and directions comes up. I believe this means that they have validated their address with Google, as that's what my organization had to do to have such a listing. --Jason Gastrich 06:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
              • What does having a valid address mean about its notability? Did you really just link a wikipedia page to a google search of your own organization? Arbustoo 06:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, really. No independent non-trivial sources. It might have "notable characteristics" but it fails the primary notability criterion. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a minor organisation, fails notability, just plainly unencyclopedic. Shot info 08:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per NDCompuGeek. --JJay 12:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Explain that. You voted keep "per" the creator of the article who claimed that it is accredited (its not), and that he thinks notable, but doesn't have sources for it. This is NOT A VOTE. What sources prove notability? Arbustoo 17:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete This articles faces the classic problem when we have no non-trivial reliable sources. There is simply nothing we can say about it other than that it exists. The seminary is at this point not notable. If someone can present non-trivial reliable sources I will be happy to change my opinion. JoshuaZ 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Change to Delete - I am changing my !vote to delete, and suggesting to the proponents of keeping this article that they write a new article titled Inter-City Baptist Church, and use the content of the current article as a subsection. I have taken the liberty of saving the content of the current article in the edit history of my own sandbox here, where you can easily retrieve it if the article is deleted. The seminary is intimately tied to the church, and I believe that the church would be easier to assert notability. - Crockspot 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor. MetsFan76 02:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Non-trivial reliable sources are absent. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per various above (RGT). I thought Gastrich was forever banned from editing...? Eusebeus 06:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We need more easily accesible information, not less. People here are just so delete button happy. What's wrong with you? If you don't like the forum, or have something to contribute, then edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JennyMac007 (talk • contribs) 09:23, May 3, 2007 (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. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kamran Pasha

Kamran Pasha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subject and only editor appears to the subject of the article RossPatterson 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I've tagged the article with {{coi}} and {{unreferenced}} tags... if there is to be any hope of a keep, this needs to be sourced per WP:RS and WP:BLP, and not just be an autobiography. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm almost certain this is a re-creation. I think I speedied another article with this title a week or two ago. Dppowell 03:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I've been watching this article for several months to see if it would get better, and its history goes back to August 2006. RossPatterson 11:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Sources have been added that suggest subject is notable, including substantial media coverage. Article should stand. User:Demille 07:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep --Remi 08:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - although it might be vanity, I think that the info here is unbiased and reasonable. - Richard Cavell 09:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep appears to be notable, but I suggest a clean-up if the article survives this AfD. Acalamari 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Since the AfD nomination, the article has undergone significant changes, especially the addition of 13 sources (see [9]). The subject is notable and the article has been significantly cleaned up. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:45, 2 May 2007 (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 Minutes to Midnight (album). - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Little Things Give You Away

The Little Things Give You Away (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable Linkin Park song. Not a single and the article doesn't seem to define notability. Possibly an example of over zealous fans creating articles on non notable items when they could be condensed into an album page. Rehevkor 01:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect any appropriately sourced content to Minutes to Midnight (album), with no prejudice to have an article on the song assuming it ever becomes a notable single. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the album. I see nothing to merge. The only source is a fansite posting of a supposed magazine article, which is far from reliable. If this is released as a single then the article can be re-established with such quaint things as facts and sources. Otto4711 01:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• redirect per Otto. Standard practice here. --W.marsh 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the album. I agree completely. No single, no notability, no article.

TeamOverload 13:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect I can't this every growing into a very good article. mako (talk•contribs) 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Alright can we just do something with it already then? TeamOverload 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Just leave it alone. Why bother with it? Linkin Park has talked about the song.

And that makes it notable enough for Wikipedia how? Rehevkor 14:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The information on this song has been on a lot of fansites. It is not nonsense. The page isn't hurting any one.

You didn't answer the question. Rehevkor 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's such a petty question, but ok. Linkin Park wrote the song. That is reliable. LP Association, LP:Fuse, and other LP sites have all kinds of stuff like that. Just seems like a waste of energy to me.

LP may have written it. It may be "reliable", whatever you mean by that. But is it notable? It's not a single. It's not even been released. No awards. Nothing. Is wikipedia a LP fan site now? You can sourse an article as much as you like, but it doesn't make it notable. If you think otherwise, edit the article and write why it's notable, because right now, there's nothing to say it is. Rehevkor 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to album page, as the bit about the solo is useful info to record. The song as itself, however, is not currently notable enough to warrant a page of its own. U-Mos 15:51, 2 May 2007 (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 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neural Reality

Neural Reality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced original research. --Infrangible 01:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - appears to be WP:OR --Haemo 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:OR violation. Dppowell 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. This appears to be a common 'invention' used as a discussion point, to explore cognition. There is even an attempt at a website, but strangely no further developed than the article. A number of papers mention the concept, but again, to explore other topics. This is too much a dicdef/neologism to stand by itself. That it doesn't even have links to the available web mentions is amazing, but they wouldn't show the concept as a separate domain. Shenme 04:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article can be improved and may have to be modified substantially, but the concept appears to be firmly established ([10]). Stammer 06:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:OR. Acalamari 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, probably established to support an argument on a messageboard somewhere jamesgibbon 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but I'd like to throw in WP:BOLLOCKS as well. Someguy1221 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks with 188 hits on GScholar.Stammer 17:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my previous statement, bollocks for the claim that "Virtual Reality [is] clearly distinguishable from what is perceived as the 'real world.'" Looking at the link provided by Shenme, this may be a misinterpretation of the actual theory, presuming such a concept actually exists in real science. Someguy1221 18:17, 29 April 2007 (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 A7 as previously tagged. The entire article was "[article title] is a [type of] company that [does this]." Even if Nitrosell does meet WP:CORP, all versions meet speedy criteria. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nitrosell

Nitrosell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company fails WP:CORP --Infrangible 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No corporate info, no news bits, no WP:RS. Very buzzwordy. It's almost like they did this to announce their company. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just speedied this as an A7. Spam page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dppowell (talk • contribs) 03:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
• Delete Ow. One sentence of 6-7 buzzwords. It's at best an ad-stub. (Their web site isn't clueing me in much better) Shenme 04:28, 27 April 2007 (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 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Given Up

Given Up (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, un-released Linkin Park song. Nothing to suggect it's the next single other than what appears to be an advertisement for WB. Even if it is going to be a single, it falls under WP:NOT#CBALL. Rehevkor 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice should it be released or otherwise become notable. Otto4711 03:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Otto. YechielMan 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Acalamari 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless truly relevant-specific information is posted... User:Cmarquezu 19:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no source/content Theturtleguy 06:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge? - is there an official announcement on its release? Is it on their record label's schedule? A source is needed, otherwise Merge to the album - at least until there is a confirmation. - eo 14:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to album, as it is not announced as a single and the only real info on the article is how to play the song on the website. Which is not encyclopediac AT ALL. U-Mos 15:49, 2 May 2007 (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 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nsuers

Nsuers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Neologism. --Infrangible 01:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This almost looks like an A7 speedy to me... Dppowell 03:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. dicdef as well. - Aagtbdfoua 03:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All it says is that these are people who graduated from a particular school. Dicdef. However, note the existence of Yalies, although having all those people and being able to say why they are important helps justify the list. Shenme 04:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing but a dicdef. Note that the NSUers website is referenced from North South University, which is all that's required. BTLizard 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced neologism. Yalie is irrelevant to this discussion. That term has been around for decades, if not centuries, and Yale University has a much greater reputation than North South University. DarkAudit 14:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the reasons listed above. Acalamari 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —dima/talk/ 04:19, 28 April 2007 (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 parent album articles. What and where to merge, as always, is an editorial decision, as there is a clear interest in doing so, histories will be left intact. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreword (Linkin Park song)

Foreword (Linkin Park song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable, non single, 13 second long song, article contains no notable info or sources. An exaple of over zealous article creation. Rehevkor 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason, non notable non singles with no or unreliable sources:

Don't Stay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hit the Floor (Linkin Park song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Easier to Run (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Figure.09 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nobody's Listening (Linkin Park song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Session (Linkin Park song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Merge & redirect most. "Forward" page might make an interesting note on the album's page, but "This is a thirteen second intro to the multi-million second studio album" is a bit of a stretch for independent notability. Some are just "$SONG is the $NUMBER track on the album" statements. Several others appear to be solely an extended quote from a member of the band...WP is not a collection of liner notes. "Session" is only one that seems to assert real notability. DMacks 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

True, Session does has some notability, but there's not enough info to warrent it's own page.. Can be merged into the album page. Rehevkor 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. We're already in AfD land, so let it run its course, but note that if merge/redirect was the initial goal, could have just been bold and done so without needing admin help or AfD noms. DMacks 02:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect all except Session - the Grammy nomination and film usage is (barely) enough to establish notability (but these must be sourced). The rest are, as noted, quotes about the songs from a magazine interview. Otto4711 02:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Mergethese have no notability, except Session, and most cannot be sourced easily Patar knight 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all the songs to the appropriate Linkin Park album(s) articles where they are listed, or to the band if they are true singles with no album afiliation. I too find it very odd and confusing that the AfD nominator put the songs up for deletion, and then proposed redirection instead. Whatever. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oops. Wasn't thinking I guess, changed it now.. Rehevkor 17:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• comment - what precisely is the WP criterion of notability for a song nowadays? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 04:52, 6 May 2007 (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 16:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skiena salad

Skiena salad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No Google hits for the topic. Not sure if its a local-interest or a certain restaurant's item? PROD (for "uncited") was removed without adding cites. DMacks 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete... unless someone can show me what a "Skiena salad" is, this violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC) I wonder if it goes well with a Spanjo...
• Delete. The article demonstrates what it is, but not only is it not notable, but it would seem that the bit talking about Big H sauce is entirely unsourced, and just sounds wrong. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - so, it's a salad consisting of iceberg lettuce, and an over-the-counter commercially produced dressing, which is no longer made. That's barely even a salad, let alone a notable one. --Haemo 06:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No Google hits, and the claim that Big H sauce was removed from sale due to its resemblance to McDonald's special sauce is implausible. --Metropolitan90 08:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS quite apart from being a recipe - I don't believe for one moment that McDonalds could force something off the market for "resembling their special sauce" or there'd be no Thousand Island Dressing on the market — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We get zero Google hits for a foodstuff the article admits cannot be made because one of the principal ingredients no longer exists, and furthermore even if it could there's no consensus on the recipe. There's no claim of historical interest (eg favourite food of the Beatles, Joe di Maggio or Dwight D Eisenhower) either. And why is it called a Skiena salad anyway? BTLizard 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's a non-notable salad. Why do we need an article on that? Acalamari 18:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everything above. Could have speedied --C56C 18:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per all votes above, no notability on the web, and cannot be made anymore (thus losing even more notability). Patar knight 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - no google hits for this salad if I remove anything wikipedia flavored (+"skiena salad" -site:wikipedia.org). Article creator has only made precisely one contribution - this article. WP:SNOW, anybody? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does not prove the notability of the salad nor was I able to find multiple reliable secondary sources to prove notability. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:58, 2 May 2007 (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 16:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Fox

Jeff Fox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The only claim to notability in the article is that "Fox briefly played guitar in the alternative rock band Ween", but the Ween article doesn't list "Jeff Fox" as being part of the band, however briefly. (But does list musicians with very minor contributions). Coren 02:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No notability listed, no sources. Link to Ween shows he wasn't there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Pretty common name, but if you Google him with his magazine, "Barracuda", you'll see more 3rd party coverage. Dppowell 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced, WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, Dennis & Guy. Deiz talk 04:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 05:03, 28 April 2007 (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 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizen Erazed

Citizen Erazed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This band, and the albums articles that will be added to this nomination, do not seem to exist. Despite one of the albums allegedly getting platinum status on sales in the UK, there are no hits on Google for the band, their albums or anything else related to the band Flowerpotman talk|contribs 02:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Note I am also adding:

You Come In Through The Lylac Doors Singing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Stars (Citizen Erazed album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

St. Pyro D'or (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Untitled Dreams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

. (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Starlight (Citizen Erazed Single) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Andromeda-Milky Way Collision (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ours (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

. Live (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all One way to tell a group of articles is a hoax, or at least a COI, is if only one person wrote all of them. Bingo. The page histories show that all contributions (with trivial exceptions) come from the same user, who doesn't yet have a solid track record. I'll leave him a note. YechielMan 04:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all this is the second total fantasy band I've seen. Always make me chuckle.Madmedea 14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yup. I have to admit that The Andromeda-Milky Way Collision sounds like a title Muse would come up with. ;O) Flowerpotman talk|contribs 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all not notable. --C56C 18:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all It's surprising the trouble some people will willingly take for something to trite. Coren 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as total fantasy. tomasz. 13:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced articles. LittleOldMe 10:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (music) and comments above. I highly suspect this is advertising for a band with the myspace account name "Citizenerazed" ... unlikely that they have any platinum albums, though. Unless, maybe it's a secret music billboard? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:02, 2 May 2007 (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 16:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who clichés

Doctor Who clichés (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - for all the same reasons the similar articles on video game plot clichés, video game item clichés, animation clichés, comic book clichés, stand up comedy clichés and even the list of clichés were deleted. Otto4711 02:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• That article is so stupid...get it? It's a cliche! Oh, never mind. Delete. YechielMan 04:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm a Doctor Who buff and I don't think it's 'stupid'. Maybe rename it to recurring themes or situations or something. I don't see the grounds for deletion especially as the nominator can't be bothered to tell me what they are, as opposed to pointing out that 'other crap doesn't exist'. It's not an indiscriminate list of information, it points out recurring story ideas and plot devices which are used in the same way in otherwise very different stories over a long span of time. It can be expanded and improved but why should it be deleted? Nick mallory 05:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NOR, fails WP:NPOV, unsourced. --Folantin 07:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, even for a cliche list this is weak. A lot of these are common fictional tropes that are in no way specific to Doctor Who.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced, probably can't be sourced to secondary sources to prove notability/that anyone else has considered that these are clichés. Moreschi ^Talk 12:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced, OR, and seems generally unencyclopedic anyway. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I'm a Doctor Who buff and I do think it's impermissible. Chockfull of speculation, POV, original research and a good bit of nonsense as well. Corridors in set design? 1960s female characters screaming? The good guys get framed as part of the plot? Using the customary widgets to solve plots? Sheesh. What shows don't?  RGTraynor  16:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yet Another Cliché List. JuJube 18:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a list of information that fails WP:NOR. Acalamari 18:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's an overall useless list of little importance, and these are used in all shows. It's also unsourced, and unencylopedic. Patar knight 21:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• EXTERMINATE, EXTERMINATE: Just a huge pile of OR, and such a stretch much of it is: Female characters who scream, references to previous episodes. Andrew Levine 01:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as rather hopelessly original research ... I'm certain one or two of these could be attributed to a source, but a few clichés does not an article make. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:04, 2 May 2007 (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 Salvatore Leone to List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto_III#Salvatore_Leone, and Lance Vance to List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto:_Vice_City#Lance_Vance. Sandstein 09:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salvatore Leone

Salvatore Leone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Strong Delete Redirect Not notable enough for his own article per both WP:FICT and WP:N. Only person who truly contests this is some anon editor who's argument quite possibly falls into WP:ILIKEIT. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• • It's become apparent that I need to add other articles to this list; I hereby nominate the following:

Lance Vance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• • This list is subject to additions. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep My kneejerk reaction is to call this fancruft, but Grand Theft Auto is more of a legitimate cultural phenomenon than most other games (many of which somehow manage to land uncontested WP articles for all their characters, big and small). Dppowell 03:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Explain to me, taking into account WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, how that merits this article's existence? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - it's hard to come to a conclusion in the absence of any sources. If there are reliable sources regarding this subject then they need to be added to the article before the AFD closes. If the article remains unsourced then delete. Otto4711 05:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - I agree with Klptyzm. Both character's are not notable enough for their own articles and every time someone does try to make this article exist it becomes a mess. Not to mention that they both already have been covered in the "List of characters" for their respective GTA games. .:Alex:. 09:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable enough to stand alone as an article, and his history is already covered in the lists of GTA III and GTA:LCS pages, respectively. Tarc 13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• I've nominated another article; examine it and vote accordingly, please. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both characters' notability are insufficient to warrant their own articles. JuJube 18:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong redirect both to their respective sections in the "List of [GTA III for Leone / Vice City for Vance] characters" articles. These are both certainly viable search terms, but the lack of independent sources specific to these characters shows, unfortunately, that they don't meet WP standards for standalone articles. (Of course, I hate deleting almost anything GTA, but rules are rules and this isn't an IAR case.) -- Kicking222 19:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed vote per your reasoning; I totally agree with you. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• redirect both keep the material, its well written, but they can be put into sections of lists of GTA characters, as they lack individual notability. Patar knight 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sure all of it's been written somewhere. Needs to be plain redirected, no merge. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is just a query. If we do redirect, could we at least remove their names from the characters template? .:Alex:. 18:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Hell yes. Please do so now, if possible. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:22, 29 April 2007 (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 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film and television clichés

Film and television clichés (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - for all the same reasons the similar articles on video game plot clichés, video game item clichés, animation clichés, comic book clichés, stand up comedy clichés and even the list of clichés were deleted. Otto4711 02:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - inseparable original research. Rhobite 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The fact that this article tagged as unreferenced for four months now with no sources added whatsover further underscores the fact that this topic is inherently OR. As has been discussed in the prior cliche list AfDs, the very concept of a cliche is ill-defined and POV, and there is no way to source this without synthesizing information to draw one's own conclusion. Krimpet (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent. YechielMan 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - aren't these cliché articles becoming cliché? No sources, completely OR, unencyclopedic. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. — As per precedent and previous comments. — Grstain | Talk 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yet Another Cliché List. JuJube 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the reasons listed above. Acalamari 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because fun and fascinating articles like this keep Wikipedia interesting and hip! :) --24.154.173.243 21:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per everything above, also many grammar and spelling mistakes, and is in an (almost) unreadable list format for the duration of the article. Unreferenced and unsourced. Patar knight 21:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• "Strong Delete" copied from evil overlord list. 70.184.32.37 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep well-written article on a notable topic that merely needs references. References could be found, since many articles have been written about these. I don't see why video game plot clichés, video game item clichés, animation clichés, comic book clichés, stand up comedy clichés and even the list of clichés have any relevance to this AfD since most of those are too narrow or too broad to exist well as articles anyway. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is one of the biggest crap-magnets on Wikipedia, compiled by hundreds (thousands?) of passing editors adding anything they think is a cliché. Extreme OR. Croxley 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. The subject of clichés in film and television is surely an encyclopedic one for which there are many sources, but this article is too much like the "Evil Overlord" list. So, delete without prejudice to proper recreation. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:07, 2 May 2007 (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. WjBscribe 04:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wenatchee Valley Mall

Wenatchee Valley Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article about this mall, about which there appears to be nothing special, and seems to fail WP:N. This a pathetic stub since November 2006, with little hope of expansion for want of sources. 159 unique Ghits, most are directory listings of chains who list having a store there, property agents' listings, and so far nothing which really indicates the mall is known at all outside the local community of 5,757 population. Ohconfucius 03:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep unless we're going to AfD everything else in Category:United States mall stubs. This doesn't seem any more or less notable than most of those. Dppowell 03:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Ohconfucius 04:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment That's an essay, not a policy. It merely reflects some opinions of its authors. --Cyrus Andiron 12:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Rebecca 04:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dppowell. What makes this one any less notabe than the other 342 malls in the category? --Cyrus Andiron 12:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because a mall only has x amount of GHits doesn't mean it's non-notable. Fort Saginaw Mall hardly has any GHits, but the few webpages that do mention that mall give valuable, non-trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 12:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This article doesn't even assert notability, none of the above comments supply any sources for notability, the article has no reliable sources, fails WP:N, and fails WP:NOT#DIR. Wikipedia is not a mall directory. Failing so many policies and guidelines, I don't understand how an argument can be made for inclusion. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added several reliable sources to this article -- it's still kinda stub class, but now it should at least pass WP:RS; furthermore, it's no longer a directory page.Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 21:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Added the GLA to the article. Too small to be considered a regional mall, and no other claims to notability. See also Shopping mall and the proposed notability guideline (labelled "rejected") WP:MALL where there was discussion of factors making a mall notable or not. Edison 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not assert notability. Don't need to look any further when it fails this test. Dimitrii 16:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have added much more information to this article, as well as many sources. It may be a dinky mall, but it's obviously faring well, and it serves a fairly wide market. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 18:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Where is the assertion of notability? Yes it exists but what else? Vegaswikian 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the additions by User:TenPoundHammer, including numerous sources (see [11]). For those desiring an assertion of notability, I think "Wenatchee Valley Mall is the only mall within an 80-mile radius of East Wenatchee, and thus serves a population of over 200,000 people" qualifies as one. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, although fully sourced thanks to good work by TenPoundHammer, I still have major reservations about notability of the mall. Most of the links/refs posted are either 1/very local, 2/for property agents marketing the property, 3/press release of companies which have set up store, so quality of sources and notability is still insufficient to bring this up to the standards we are accustomed to seeing on wikipedia. Ohconfucius 04:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The fact that the sources are local didn't/doesn't bother me, but the other two points you raise did/do. It's obvious that notability is barely met, but I base my recommendation to keep primarily on these three sources. It's not the among the most notable malls, of course, but I'd rather err on the side of caution for now. After all, the sources noted in the article are only those available online ... there are likely more print sources out there. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - An important large mall in its region and the article is very referenced. --Oakshade 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it's definitely not a large mall, but I think that notability is met at least somewhat. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:16, 4 May 2007 (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 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neil rankin

Neil rankin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A high school teacher, former college professor, and perhaps textbook editor. Unreferenced article with no signs of meeting WP:BIO, WP:PROF or any other notability criterion. Aagtbdfoua 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my reasoning above. - Aagtbdfoua 03:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, suspect this may also be a case of WP:AUTO. Dppowell 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless someone can say how this person is notable. Acalamari 18:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because article meets WP:BIO, WP:PROF, and notability. --24.154.173.243 22:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. No assertion of notability. Should have been a CSD. StuffOfInterest 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, for lack of WP:ATT and little hope of attaining it. For people who treat WP:N as policy: barely fails WP:PROF--he seems exactly an average professor, which is useful to remind ourselves when we try to decide what an above-average professor's biography would look like. (Note also, there is a Prof. Neil Rankin in Economics who is extemely notable, so if it an article on him is ever created, it should be kept) --Myke Cuthbert 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Judging from the photo, he didn't even write any textbooks, just edit them & not mentioned on the cover. First time I've seen a practical use for the photos of book covers. DGG 04:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of references. Notability of academics is a debatable issue, but when an article has so few sources it doesn't provide much reason to keep it. EdJohnston 01:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability. JuJube 06:20, 30 April 2007 (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 G10, blatant attack page, probably an A7 even if it wasn't. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] True Fade

True Fade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonsense Fontenot 1031 03:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Attack page. Speedied. Dppowell 03:28, 27 April 2007 (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 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Square Mall

London Square Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article about this mall, about which there appears to be nothing special, and seems to fail WP:N. This a pathetic stub since April 2006, and there appears to be little hope of expansion for want of sources. The one referenced article is but a trivial mention, and speaks of its demolition. 64 unique Ghits, most are directory listings of chains who list having a store there, property agents' listings, and so far nothing which really indicates the mall is known at all outside the local community. Ohconfucius 03:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Again, would argue keep if it still existed. Dppowell 03:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether something still exists or not has no bearing on its notability and inclusion or deletion. As WP:NOTE says, "Notability is generally permanent": it can generally (for Wikipedia purposes) only increase, never decrease. If it was notable when it existed, then it is still notable after its demolition. Fram 10:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Rebecca 04:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not a vote, but an attempt to come to a consensus. Please give reasons for your vote. Thanks! --Charlene 08:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't even seem worth merging into Eau Claire, Wisconsin. --Calton | Talk 04:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As I said before, Google is not the ultimate factor in notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Once again, no sources, no evidence of notability, not even an assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a mall directory. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete A defunct regional mall of 550,000 square feet GLA. No historical or architectural or other claim to fame. Deserves a sentence in the article on the town. List of stores does not need merging. Edison 16:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as before. We need at least something to give at least a hint that there might possibly be some source for notabilityDGG 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Frise 03:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The poorly source article doesn't even assert notability. Dimitrii 16:30, 1 May 2007 (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 16:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jefferson Square Mall

Jefferson Square Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article about this mall, about which there appears to be nothing special, and seems to fail WP:N. This stub appears to have little hope of expansion for want of sources. 67 unique Ghits, most are directory listings of chains who list having a store there, property agents' or hotels listings, and an article which mentions in passing that it is to be demolished. So far nothing which really indicates the mall is known at all outside the local community. Ohconfucius 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Rebecca 04:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't even seem worth merging. --Calton | Talk 04:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Weak keep Delete. Not a lot in the article, but the mall seems notable enough -- maybe if some Joliet Wikipedian hit the library and came up with more info on this mall, that'd be nice... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 12:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry for changing my vote twice, but I'm going with the flow this time. I'm gonna say delete now; I tried to expand this page but it's hopeless. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per these other mall articles appearing. Doesn't assert notability. Has no sources to satisfy WP:ATT. Reads like a directory entry. Too many guidelines/policies not being met to even consider keeping this. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:RS, WP:N. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete meaningless articles like this, and it seems we are getting a clearer understanding of which to keep and which not. DGG 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An article on a bulldozed shopping mall? Frise 03:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete origional research--Sefringle 04:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How is there any OR here? The anchors? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There do not seem to be any sources (in Google) that would prove the mall's notability. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:15, 2 May 2007 (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 to delete, default to keep. Merging the content back, while also supported by many here, is an editorial decision. Sandstein 09:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of the writings of William Monahan

List of the writings of William Monahan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is a review of what Monahan has written. This page should be deleted and any important information should be included in the William Monahan article WhiteKongMan 04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC). To add to my reason for nominating this I would like to point out [[WP:Not#Dir]. I didn't realiz people couldn't infer that this is why I nominated it. WhiteKongMan 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Many of the articles listed in the list also seem to fail WP:NOTE WhiteKongMan 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the policy you cite, cuz it says "Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles."-BillDeanCarter 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - We do not need a listing of every single byline of every single magazine that a particular writer has to his credit. This would establish a very problematic precedent for the listing of every single column that an editorialist or op-ed writer ever got. Otto4711 04:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fer cryin' out loud, it's a bleeding CV. Note the highlights in prose form on William Monahan and nuke this page. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm on your side but what is CV? WhiteKongMan 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Curriculum vitae"—basically the same thing as a resume. Newyorkbrad 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge back into the main article. Many readers may be interested in exploring the subject's short stories and published articles. Listing his published works in the main article does no harm and could be a useful guide for further reading and research. Cleo123 05:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete :: there is no point in divorcing a bibliography from its origin. -- Simon Cursitor 07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Cleo. List of the writings of William Monahan has a nicely referenced bibliography of which I can say that it would be a waste if we were to throw that down the alley. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 07:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the most notable writings, if not all of them, into the main article. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge: Much of this information is already in the main article; this is an unwarranted fork placing undue weight on the works. Charles Dickens doesn't have a similar article. Arthur Conan Doyle doesn't have a similar article. Neither does Michener, Hemingway, Alger, Burgess, Christie, Wharton, Huxley, Wolfe or any other prolific author I've taken ten minutes out of my life to review.  RGTraynor  13:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Mention the most notable works in the main article, but no need to merge this entire list. Croxley 04:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Nominator doesn't cite a single policy and we can't delete articles just because. Yes there are some very minor things in it, but if they are sourced that is not a problem. Having a separate bibliography makes the main article less cluttered. I would suggest that it was renamed "Writings of William Monahan", though. It doesn't matter if no other author has a similar article, all we need to worry about is to make sure that this article conforms to policy, and from what I can see, it does. Pax:Vobiscum 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a Directory, and this article is simply a list of writings, some of which link to Non-Wiki sources. Selected writings should be included in the William Monahan main article. Also, despite the fact that he won an Oscar for his screenplay for the Departed, he is not a better writer than Hemingway, Dickens, etc. Black Harry 16:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How does WP:NOT#DIR apply in this case? There are 3 types of articles that fall under that policy and I don't see how you'd fit this article into any one of those three types. A list is not the same thing as a directory. Pax:Vobiscum 13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back to William Monahan, deleting insignificant reviews, magazine articles, etc. Peterkingiron 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep How sad. There is an article called NBA Draft and countless ancillary articles, one up for FA status at the featured article list called 2003 NBA Draft. I sadly wish I had found another outlet to write about William Monahan. Hemingway, Dickens, David Mamet & etc deserve the same treatment that Monahan got (treatment from me that is). I realize Wikipedians fear that every columnist out there will have his/her work listed one by one, though Monahan was more of an artist, who occasionally wrote a cover story, a book review, etc. If he were a columnist with 50 or so articles per newspaper, then that could be summed up in a paragraph or something for each glob. Showing respect for talent is the best thing you can do and having a complete finite account of a journalist's ouevre does no harm. Are we really only interested in having a full account of the 2003 NBA Draft? Having this list of Monahan's writings is what allowed me to write most of the main article to begin with. I'm already getting a hold of more of his stuff, though I'm looking for a better repository for this information. Life goes on. Mine, not here.-BillDeanCarter 09:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: That's an eloquent paragraph, but do you have any policy or guideline grounds you'd like to submit as a rationale to Keep?  RGTraynor  13:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't play that game. I'll say this. William Monahan is notable; that's established. His writings are notable; see the countless mentions of them by New York writers/citizens who lived through those years, especially talking about him after he won his Academy Award. They stirred up shit, his articles, so people remember him. The other good thing about this list I've pulled together, it gives literary context to all his writings, especially the Claude stories that make satirical reference to his career. New York journalists will each tell you their favorite piece of his. I see a problem here, being if the crowd don't know about it then it ain't notable, which is a dangerous way to document history.-BillDeanCarter 04:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This debate isn't about Monahan's notability, but rather whether this list is appropriate as its own article. A majority of these could and should be added to his main article, and this list deleted as a result. Black Harry 06:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. Sorry. I forgot about Wikipedia's high standards and barrier to entry.-BillDeanCarter 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "playing a game." Were I the closing admin, and all I was handed by the Keep proponents was that the subject was a hell of a swell fellow who's notable, I'd reason that the argument was equally as valid for Toilet seats used by William Monahan, Women William Monahan have kissed and Sports teams for which William Monahan has been a season ticket holder, but there wasn't any explicit policy grounds to keep those either. Are you comfy with resting on that argument?  RGTraynor  13:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Food for thought I don't think the guys at Featured lists are aware of what's going on here at AfD. Certainly they are doing some interesting stuff, and featuring some great lists (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-04-30/Featured_list). Compare my List of the writings of William Monahan to those featured lists. I'm sure they would be glad to see this list show up there for promotion one day when completed.-BillDeanCarter 08:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator has failed to cite any policy on why it should be deleted. The article William Monahan is a Featured Article, and it is entirely apropriate to list his works seperately. There are dozens of examples of writers haveing seperate articles for their work (see Category:Bibliographies by author). Tompw (talk) (review) 12:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just cited policy, will that change your mind now? Also, many authors in that category have written multiple books, whereas Monahan 's list is mostly a collection of articles from magazines or newspapers. Would you want me to make a Bibliography for Rick Reilly of Sports Illustrated, whose list would be similar WhiteKongMan 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unnecessary fork from William Monahan#Man of letters. All of his most significant works all already detailed in that article. Masaruemoto 03:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean Masaruemoto? Are you more knowledgeable on this subject than I? I wrote that article and I'm telling you his most significant works are NOT already detailed in that article. Anyways, I'm sure the drivel will continue to pour into here, full of Deletes and I watch the Simpsons, whaz yer fave episode? Wikipedia cannot be MySpace. This is too important of a web site.-BillDeanCarter 04:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if his most significant works aren't in his main article, its because YOU have FAILED to include them in the article. WhiteKongMan 15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What an arrogant little shit. A guy (me) comes to Wikipedia, contributes more in writing than WhiteKongMan could ever do in a decade, and you have the gall to tell me I have FAILED? If anyone wants to hear the complete story about Monahan's career as a writer then they'll Keep this list, and let it reaches its end. WhiteKongMan you should leave Wikipedia and let writers do their job.-BillDeanCarter 23:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Tompw, no legitimate reason given for deletion. --Phoenix (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge a slimmed down version with William Monahan - I just don't see how notable this list is on its own: many of the entries seem rather trivial. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not citing any useful policy. Slimming down a list that isn't even complete yet? Popular culture (TV eps, Sports matches) is not a standard to be used for notability. Please stop fueling this idiotic AfD. How dumbed-down do we want our culture? What has happened to human beings who actually read an author's works? I just found List of works by Neil Gaiman and what a god damn joy! It's outrageous that this buffoonery wants to eliminate that kind of intrigue.-BillDeanCarter 10:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sadistic. I put the List of works by Neil Gaiman up for deletion. Go vote to Keep it or to Delete it.-BillDeanCarter 11:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia simply to prove a point is never advisable. See WP:POINT.Cleo123 04:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per concerns about no clear policy being cited. This is useful information, and relevant. Merging will make the parent article too long Lurker 11:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you say I didn't cite any policy, I would like to ask you to point out a policy about the length of articles. WhiteKongMan 14:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size should clear things up for you. Hope you find it useful! Lurker 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If both articles were combined in full, the size wold be about 53 KB. However, many of the writings listed seem non-notable,and could be left out, reducing the size to around 45-48KB, which wouldn't fall under the 'Probably should be divided range (over 60KB). Also, merging wouldn't effect the readability of the main article, as it would just be adding a list. WhiteKongMan 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just as a Reference a similar debate involing a list of Aaron Sorkin's writings was just settled, with the decision made to delete and merge. And another debate involving Bruno Maddox's writing is also on going, despite BillDeanCarter's efforts to derail the debate by improperly moving the page. Black Harry 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment an example of long lists that are separate articles and sections in the author biography, respectively, are: Bibliography of Isaac Asimov and Bibliography of J. R. R. Tolkien (yes, that is a redirect to a section - I wish more people used those). Also of interest is Category:Bibliographies by author - a whole category of such list articles. Some of these list articles are split out for size reasons, some should probably be merged to the author articles. Carcharoth 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but WhiteKongMan noted in a response to a previous comment about that catagory that a majority of those bibliographies involve novels, not a handful of short stories. And the list in question contains mainly articles in newspapers and magazines. Would you like me to make an article on WRKO personality and Boston Herald Columnist Howie Carr's writings? He to has written one novel and numerous other works, but that would immedaitly be deleted, as this article should have been. Black Harry 17:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Carcharoth 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points if you live in Lalaland and Neverland all at the same time, and haven't figured out yet that Monahan wasn't a columnist and this is an incredibly difficult list to compile.-BillDeanCarter 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ever think that the list was difficult to make because the writings on the list are not notable? And since when did the difficulty in writing an article have any relevance concerning whether to keep or delete itBlack Harry 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per basic common sense that what is of value here should be merged to William Monahan. Pointless fork. Eusebeus 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to William Monahan. Let the editors there decide what to do with the material, such as pruning and consolidating to get the balance right. Carcharoth 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm THE editor at William Monahan. I decided to fork this material because I got a hold of more and more stuff. Have you seen Bibliography of Hunter S. Thompson? All of you should be reading instead of voting to eradicate a very difficult list to come by that anyone with a modicum of sense would keep.-BillDeanCarter 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than telling us what we should be reading, perhaps you should read WP:OWN your own self. Whatever your work on various articles, you do not get to decide in isolation how much detail authors are to be accorded, and your contributions are not uniquely exempted from consensus and peer review ... the more so in that you are not the only editor on this article (not counting anon IPs, there are 27 other editors this calendar year). I'd suggest looking for encyclopedias where you could work without your contributions being subject to outside review or editing, but I suspect they don't exist.  RGTraynor  00:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge back on the basis on the content; "list" also contains a long section on the criticism of one particular book, apparently removed from the main article as well as the actual list of works--in other words, its two sections of the article pulled out without any reason. There may be some addition previous editing dispute involved, because i can't see the sense of this. DGG 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• JOURNALISTS WHO SPAKE OF MONAHAN: Business Week's Jon Fine: "Anyway, Monahan's piece was great, as was most of his stuff he wrote for the Press back then. It's a minor drag that it all seems pretty much lost now, but things have turned out pretty well for him." Author Dawn Eden: "I remember Bill from 10 years ago as charming, libertarian-leaning, with a razor-sharp wit that he used in print to anger as many people as possible. Monahan's most notorious New York Press piece, "Dr. Rosenthal, I Presume" (6/21/95), was a devil's-advocate response to a New York Times op-ed by A.M. Rosenthal that had recommended the United States spend $100 million to eradicate female genital mutilation in Africa." and journalist William Georgiades "A decade ago, Oliver Stone’s one and only novel was kindly reviewed by William Monahan, who went on to write the very funny novel “Light House” (Riverhead). Since then, Monahan has written screenplays for Ridley Scott’s “The Kingdom of Heaven” and Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed,” and this weekend he’s nominated for an Oscar for the latter."-BillDeanCarter 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a bit fleshier than most lists, but the article itself is long enough so splitting out the material makes sense and I thought we were heading toward fleshier lists these days. Keep based on policy, WP:NOT#Dir is not applicable, since this is not a directory, such as a compilation of zip codes for reference purposes, or a list of loosely associated material. If WP:Not#Dir applied, we'd have to say a list of Shakespeare's writings failed the test as well. Likewise, WP:NOTE goes to notability of a subject for an article, not what is included. I fail to find a reason here to delete, other than "I don't like it", or, perhaps, some just don't like Mr. Carter, who is being somewhat uncivil here.38.112.153.190 00:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding the validity of the above comment, please see this. 66.65.54.63 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I forgot to sign in before making the above comment, which is me. I found this page from Wiki's front page, and found the other list via this one - the fact that my comment went on the other one first was simply a question of how I was navigating Wiki at the time. Yes, Mr. Carter seems to have added a bit of canvassing to various other bits of incivility: it did not affect my view. As to the above anonymous contribution, please try to assume a bit of good faith. This is the kind of posting that throws some fuel on what are already flames - I hope the closing administrator will discount those posting that do not seem motivated by the merits of the case.A Musing 13:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Carter has cleary violated WP:Canvas, and he should face repercussions for this, as well as the tone he has taking regarding this and other pet projects of his Black Harry 14:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Please read WP:Canvas more closely, and consider it's suggestions for remedial action in a sensible fashion - as noted above, his post had no impact. You may also want to consider whether a single post to one person is a canvass. What "repercussions" are you suggesting - how ominous that "repercussions" sounds! This one's just a guy frustrated with the way others have behaved here thankful that someone's judging on the merits. Now that I've posted and seen a bunch of folks in glass houses running up ready to throw stones, I've got more sympathy for the guy. A Musing 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Regardless of the impact his post had, his intent was to get your support to keep one of his pet projects safe from deletion. Also, not sure if sympathy would be considered a legit reason to keep an article. And as for repercussions, I would suggest stripping him of his Barnstar, not only for the canvas thing but also because of the tone he has taken in this debate and others, the attack on people who support these deletions on his userpage, his blatant attempt to sabotage a legit debate on the merits of a Bruno Maddox list by moving the list's page, and his bad-faith nomination of another list for deletion. Black Harry 17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Read Here to see another potential violation of WP:Canvas by Carter. I'm not sure how many users responded to that post on this page and voted keep, but this should remove any doubt that Carter was canvassing. He clearly was intent on finding people sympathetic to his cause, and if this isn't canvassing what is? Black Harry 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per 38.112.153.190 above. - Shudda ^talk 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding the above comment, although I do not agree people should be instructing others whether to vote delete or keep, I do believe this article should not be deleted. A merge would make sense, however as the main article is above 32kB I think it's better to keep them separate. This discussion seems to be very heated on both sides, and I would urge the closing admin to consider WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. - Shudda ^talk 06:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete' or merge. An ego trip seems to be the only validation of this article's continued existence. Someone above suggested leaving it to future editors to prune, consolidate, etc. and that's good advice. The subject matter here is the reason the author obtains an article. While not exactly civil, some sarcastic suggestions above hit the mark exactly.--Buckboard 12:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: First, establishing a web directory is not allowed. Second, the author is barely sufficiently known to be mentioned. Third, these are trivial articles and transient publications with only slightly more life and peer review than a web posting. Fourth, the stuff, such as it is, should be a single sentence in the author's article. Fifth, the title is unsearchable. Sixth, the information is indescriminate. Is that enough reasons? Utgard Loki 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would love to actually have a sensible discussion about this list once I've completed it. I come from a background where people share writers with each other, and where people cut out, or point links to each other of what they think is really innovative writing. We're celebrating featured lists in this week's Signpost and it would be great if more bibliographies started showing up at WP:FLC. Lists of writings are in a class of their own because they're almost never trivial.-BillDeanCarter 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A sensible, dispassionate discussion would have been nice, but after a week of insults, spamming nonsense and bad faith noms on this and similar AfDs, perhaps you'll forgive us for a healthy dose of skepticism regarding your professed desire for one at this late date.  RGTraynor  16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this debate is seven days old, and it appears that most valid points have already been brought up, and that the same opinions are being repeated continually. As such, I believe that this debate should be closed soon, regardless of the outcome. Black Harry 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Another Quick Note the Bruno Maddox Debate, which involved a similar article, just closed with deletion as the result Black Harry 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I am deeply disturbed by some of the arguments being made here. Many of the editors seem to be making arguments based on their personal opinion of or knowledge of (or lack thereof) of the subject.

• Monahan is notable because he is a writer, thus a list of his writings are relevant to the major reason he has been included in wikipedia.
• One part of the argument seems to be that only "great" writers should have their entire bibliographies listed, but to assemble a bibliography only of so-called "great" writers such as Charles Dickens, who by the way was a journalist as well and who does not have a bibliography, would perpetuate the view that there is a canon of great writers. This idea has been rejected by literary critics, the experts in the field (wikipedia requires that its editors rely on experts, remember?).
• Another part of the argument has focused on the idea that these writings are irrelevant and ephemeral, therefore they should not all be listed. To this I would answer, first, that wikipedia is not paper. Second, you do not know what will become relevant or interesting to people in the future. Teturning to Charles Dickens as an example, many of his novels were published in periodicals piece by piece. They were "ephemeral," but of course, they aren't important. Also, let me give examples of other "obscure" writers with lists of works that I have created that might be open to this attack List of works by Mary Martha Sherwood and List of works by Joseph Priestley. One reason that these lists, like the Monahan list, is so useful is because the information is so hard to access anywhere else. Wikipedia is providing a unique service to the world in making this information so easily accessible (in my case, each of these bibliographies is only available in a single book).
• One proposal was to list only Monahan's "notable" writings, but who is supposed to decide that? The editor of the page? That doesn't sound like NPOV to me.
• Another proposal was to merge the list into the article. The list is much too long to merge into the article, much like the lists I created.
• In my opinion, many of these editors are establishing a dangerous precedent. They are essentially arguing: "I don't think this person is important or will be important in the future, so we shouldn't bother to list all of his works." Awadewit ^Talk 02:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per precedent set by deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the writings of Bruno Maddox less than two days ago. Precedent should count for something. If precedent is ignored, then just merge into the main William Monahan article. Let's be realistic about this - there are only 25 titles on the list, that is not too long to merge (as the above user tried to suggest). Crazysuit 01:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The list is not complete.-BillDeanCarter 04:08, 5 May 2007 (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. WjBscribe 04:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Mall

Indian Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article about this dying mall, about which there appears to be nothing special, and seems to fail WP:N. This stub appears to have little hope of expansion for want of sources. 51 unique Ghits, most are tourist/directory listings of Jonesboro and its shops, and an assortment of porn sites. So far nothing which really indicates the mall is known at all outside the local community. Ohconfucius 04:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

CommentPer improvements made since AfD, I still have some reservations about its notability, I'll let the AfD run its course. As others have voted delete, it cannot be closed by my withdrawing the nom. I will downgrade to weak delete. Ohconfucius 04:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This mall is actually dead completely. I worked there and I live in Jonesboro and this mall will be torn down soon so it should definitely be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.98.16 (talk)
• Delete Utterly non-notable. IronDuke 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Google is not the ultimate source for notability. As I said on this discussion, x amount of GHits doesn't always indicate notability/non-notability. If some Wikipedian in Jonesboro (perhaps the above user who forgot to sign?) would hit the library or city hall or something and find some archives, that might help. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per these other mall articles appearing. Doesn't assert notability. Has no sources to satisfy WP:ATT. Reads like a directory entry. Too many guidelines/policies not being met to even consider keeping this. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I recently added much more information to this article - it's definitely way more than a directory entry now. At the very least, it should pass WP:V and WP:RS now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 20:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable Frise 03:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Per the recent additions to this article, Arkyan's rationale is rather invalid now (maybe it doesn't fully assert notability, but there are at least valid sources, and the page is no longer a mere directory). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per rewrite. For future reference, try not to single out one sole editor's opinion as "invalid" because it can come across as rather incivil and personal. Try something like "Rewritten to address concerns brought up by editors" or something like that. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • My apologies. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 15:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • No harm done, it didn't bother me - just a little heads up because I've run in to a lot of situations (particularly here on AfD where tensions can run high) that people get snappy and take things the wrong way. Oh, and thanks for the rewrite on the article, it's always good to see when editors actually fix problem articles instead of just saying "keep" and waiting for someone else to do it. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Now referenced and with asserted notability. Good work 10 lb hammer Dimitrii 16:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the significant rewrite by TenPoundHammer ... a great effort and result in a short amount of time. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 09:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A significant amount of information has been added to the article and is referenced. The failure/downslide of Indian Mall caused a developmental war between 2 companies to construct a new mall servicing the Jonesboro Metropolitan Area. The deserting of the Indian Mall led to the construction of The Mall at Turtle Creek, the only mall to open in the year 2006. The Indian Mall was the only mall serving Northeast Arkansas and Southeast Missouri for nearly 40 years within a 70 mile radius. The next closest malls before the Indian Mall were in Memphis and Little Rock. (Lil Pun 14:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC))
• Keep Looks a lot better now. References a plenty and there is actually some significance. (YorkiePoo)
  • Comment. Thanks to YorkiePoo for adding the pictures, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 21:43, 3 May 2007 (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. WjBscribe 04:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutchess Mall

Dutchess Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article about a very ordinary mall which has been bulldozed and which seems to fail WP:N. This stub appears to have little hope of expansion for want of sources. 31 unique Ghits, most are directory listings of chains who list having a store there, property agents' or hotels listings. So far nothing which really indicates the mall is known at all outside the local community. Wikipedia is not a directory of defunct malls. Ohconfucius 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• change to keep (from delete) following rewrite. Kudos to excellent work by TenPoundHammer! Ohconfucius 04:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per these other mall articles appearing. Doesn't assert notability. Has no sources to satisfy WP:ATT. Reads like a directory entry. Too many guidelines/policies not being met to even consider keeping this. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Check it out. I added a bunch of sources and notability is now established. It's no longer a stub, nor is it a directory page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 01:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Again I say, Google isn't always an accurate gauge of notability. I'm sure that if someone could find some in-print sources (newspaper archives, old photos at the library, etc.), then any possible notability could be asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 04:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the major overhaul I gave this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Arkyan Frise 03:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The unsourced article doesn't assert notability. Dimitrii 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It does now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 01:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Fishkill (town), New York. The mall does have history however it is not clear that it is notable enough to merit an article at this point. Given time to develop in the town article, it could come back. There were many articles written about the mall over the years so there are sources for anyone with the time to flesh out the history. It was unique in some ways like the first mall in the county with a greenhouse. Vegaswikian 21:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I found a metric buttload of sources online; I'm going to rewrite and expand the article. Significant rewrite made. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 01:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm changing my opinion after the rewrite and added references. Note to closing admin. The votes before the rewrite may need to be given less weight since they are basically for an article that no longer exists. Vegaswikian 04:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per recent re-write. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per excellent rewrite. I'd like to commend TenPoundHammer for actually taking the time to improve these articles instead of just saying they can be improved. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:36, 3 May 2007 (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 14:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of the writings of Bruno Maddox

List of the writings of Bruno Maddox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of every single byline of a magazine writer ever. Otto4711 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally know!?! OMG, Ronald Reagan has an article?! Are we now going to have articlez for every President of an institution ever!-BillDeanCarter 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Partial merge with Bruno Maddox to list the publications he wrote for, but not each article because that's WP:NOT#INFO. YechielMan 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I copied and pasted the names of the publications from the list article to the name article to address this concern. Otto4711 05:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge: Heck, I don't see a lot about Maddox himself that's notable, never mind this non-notable fork. Any sources that satisfy WP:V about Maddox himself?  RGTraynor  16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell is Maddox? I've never heard of him. I don't want to know about what I don't know! heh heh (i just went for run so me laughs are shorter)-BillDeanCarter 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. We can't start listing every single magazine and newspaper article a journalist has written. Croxley 04:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is NOT a Directory, and thats exactly what this article is. Any significant writings by Maddox should be included in his article, the rest should be nuked. More important authors like Dickens and Hemingway, do not have lists of their writings. The page was created by someone who has a fetish for these pages (similar ones were created for William Monahan and Aaron Sorkin) Black Harry 18:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

nukey nukey nukey!-BillDeanCarter 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: user billdeancarter moved the page in an attempt to dodge the debate on this. I moved it back to its original name and replaced the AfD tag on it. Was this the right step to take? Also, why do these debates take so long when no one has voted to oppose the deletion? Black Harry 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close That dodging bastard!? Let's burn him! I don't know who Bruno Maddox is, but let's not find out. It looks like User:BillDeanCarter (aka me) is trying to hide this list on his user page now. How nutty is that? AfD rules!, me got me a bumper sticker.-BillDeanCarter 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Im not even sure if Bruno Maddox deserves an article, let along a stand alone bibliography 71.255.163.220 02:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're an anon but I want to say this. Bruno is from the prestigious Maddox family, all writers and all achievers. He has written much as a journalist, published an acclaimed and IMO brilliant novel called My Little Blue Dress, not to mention he was editor-in-chief of Spy magazine. Oh. Hmmm. I changed my mind, Caylie42 at MySpace has done so much more with that erupting volcano of hers. Nuke Bruno Maddox.-BillDeanCarter 04:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT#DIR. And in reply to Black Harry - yes, replacing the article and the AfD tag after it was vandalized by BillDeanCarter was the right thing to do. Anyone can place a copy of an article in their own userspace for reference, but they must not move it directly to their userspace. Judging by BillDeanCarter's trolling behaviour here, that page move was intended to be disruptive. Masaruemoto 03:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I am the farthest thing from a troll. Look at my contributions. They have had intent, they have had depth. What have you contributed in terms of actual writing?-BillDeanCarter 04:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep While it seems Mr. Carter is doing his best to get this list deleted, and ought to be a bit more civil here, I fail to see a reason to delete this as a list. Spy Magazine was a noted, even celebrated, publication, and Maddox strikes me as perfectly notable. And if we're going to write about notable people, best to start with what they've done. Given the brevity of the Maddox article currently, I'd have nothing against merging this in, but as it grows splitting this out is fine, and if someone is working on the article, keeping it separate from the outset strikes me as reasonable. The only policy I see cited above is that Wikipedia is not a directory, but I fail to see how this qualifies as a directory (index, perhaps, summary, certainly, but now, that's what an encyclopedia has, isn't it?) 38.112.153.190 00:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - completely unnecessary fork of a very unnotable writer whose own article is hardly cluttered with content. Eusebeus 06:51, 3 May 2007 (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 Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. WjBscribe 04:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip awards

List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary fork from Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip awards" are not so notable or significant in themselves that they also deserve their own article, certainly not for a show with only 16 episodes and quite probably not any more. Include highlights of the factual material back into Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip and delete this title, I say. Calton | Talk 04:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to the show article. Presumably this was forked because of the size of the main article, which generally speaking is legitimate. However, given that the show has been cancelled and the main article is unlikely to gain any great volume of material beyond what's already there, this information can be merged back without any real difficulty. If there are concerns about the length of the main article then I would suggest editors look to the sections on references to other Sorkin works and the like, which are pretty trivial. Otto4711 04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Otto. Why was it forked off? The show has only won 1 award, nominations are usually not mentioned in articles (which is what almost every entry is on this page: nominations for awards, only 1 actual win). TJ Spyke 08:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any useful content back in to the parent article, otherwise just give it the axe. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. First the show isn't yet cancelled, if it keep for one more season, this page would be useful to catalog the possible future nominations and awards. Joao Micuansky 13:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge: per above. Another cruft-laden unwarranted fork of Sorkinmania, I see.  RGTraynor  16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete per the title is misleading, seeing as 'awards' is plural. the_undertow ^talk 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Don't really see why it was split off the main article. --Nehrams2020 07:49, 29 April 2007 (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 16:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dos noun

Dos noun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While I am convinced that this person exists, I have serious doubts about whether he is notable enough per WP:MUSIC to merit an article. Google barely knows who he is; his allmusic profile is empty; he has one album on an indie label, Manifest Music, whose notability is questioned since most of the acts are either his band or thier respective solo projects. The article itself is a collection of unsourceable information about his "European tours" which are admittedly "do-it-yourself" (i.e., not tours planned in the sense of multiple venues over a period of time, but "Yes please book me. This ain't a game ... Someone needs to give me some loot so we can do this. BOOK ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", and none of it verifiable from independent sources of course; his freestyling background; his collaboration with other redlinked artists (including the deleted Verbal Tec); and the usual Myspaciousness. Delete barring any sort of indication that he meets WP:MUSIC. One WP:RS may be possible, but multiple non-trivial ones are not found. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Created by a single-purpose account, and contains a myspace link. Nominator's suspicions are confirmed. YechielMan 02:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Can't see him passing WP:MUSIC or any other notability test. 18:38, 1 May 2007 (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three Roses

Three Roses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

notability, reads like an advert, and those unfamiliar have to guess what the article is talking about Chris 05:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Other than that, it's totally fine! Delete. YechielMan 07:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Eastmain 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Eastmain 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a Tamil-language film, and the article is a stub which needs to be expanded. I don't see the film listed under the name "Three Roses" in imdb.com However, the actors seem to be notable, both because several have articles in Wikipedia and have impressive credits at imdb.com. See http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0481798/ ad for http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0708095/ for example. This suggests that the film is probably notable. Perhaps someone who knows more about Indian film than I do could expand the article. --Eastmain 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Eastmain. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 09:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Could do with some cleanup. Lousy movie, though. Tintin 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I've tagged with Template:advert for now- it is a notable film and just needs a good cleanup and references. Thunderwing 13:42, 27 April 2007 (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 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homestead-Wakefield Elementary School

Homestead-Wakefield Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no assertion of notability Chris 05:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:V, WP:NN. The article's two years old and no signs that it will ever be improved beyond uninformative stubhood.  RGTraynor  16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see evidence of notability.--Wizardman 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete From what Ive seen on these AfD's elementary schools almost never get kept, and this one is non-notable as well. --TREYWiki 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N and WP:V. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The poorly sourced article doesn't assert notability. Dimitrii 18:43, 1 May 2007 (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 transwiki. Tag as {{db-transwiki}} once done. Sandstein 17:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense song

Nonsense song (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I suggest to transwiki this to Wikisource for obvious reasons. I don't know if there's a specific tag for suggesting that, so I'm bringing it here. YechielMan 06:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Modern Times is a landmark in the history of film. The subject is notable. - Richard Cavell 09:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki per nom, assuming copyright is fully in the clear. To be an article this should be more than the lyrics and should clarify the importance outside the continaing work per WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 09:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki per nom and Dhartung. Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. Feeeshboy 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki and merge the rest into Modern Times (film)#Music. --h2g2bob 18:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki if possible and then delete. Eluchil404 17:11, 4 May 2007 (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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 17:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sobek (comics)

Sobek (comics) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article on a minor supporting character from DC Comics' Shazam! franchise introduced and later killed off in its weekly comic series 52. If we don't have articles on Uncle Marvel and Tawky Tawny (both links are redirects), we don't need one on Sobek. FuriousFreddy 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I would argue more for creating articles for those characters than for deleting this one. --DrBat 02:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? One-paragraph summaries in Marvel Family suit them fine. I tried to write an Uncle Marvel article at one time, and I found it highly unnecessary and merged it.I find an article on Sobek even more unnecessary. --FuriousFreddy 02:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Could become a well-written article if someone set their mind on it and truly turned it from a stub into an article. But if Sobek truly is simply a very minor character in the end, then perhaps my lack of knowledge on comics shines through. Jmlk17 03:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Given the current status quo of Sobek there's not really any room for the article to grow beyond a stub. If the character was still around I would have suggested creating a page for the Four Horsemen of Apokolips and merging into that--Rider kabuto 10:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite Not just am I an inclusionist, but also even given Sobek's brief life and violent death, there's plenty to write about. This article just needs expanding (and I'm with DrBat for giving Uncle and Tawky their own articles, too). Thanos6 15:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 22:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that Sobek, the Egyptian crocodile god, was important enough to be included in the Lost World of Reptiles exhibit at the Australian Reptile Park.[12] -- Jreferee 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep even though his life was brief. i would rather see more articles then less and anybody who reads comics knows that pretty much nobody ever stays dead. JayDub 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It seems like the nominator's argument is the reverse of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I am not familiar with the precedents of which comic book characters to keep and which to not keep... but i would prefer to keep this one for now. -- Ben 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Sobek's entire and overall not-notable existence can be easily summarized by 52 (comic book). ' 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't hold back now... tell us how you really feel. :) -- Ben 22:10, 2 May 2007 (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 Grandmasterka as copyvio. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guelph miscellaneous facts

Guelph miscellaneous facts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The suggestion to merge this article with Guelph is well placed, but I'm not sure how much there is to merge. A lot of the trivia are indiscriminate and unsourced. YechielMan 07:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the odd bit of verifable, notable information and then delete the article. Using the word "miscellaneous" automatically breaches WP:NOT in my book. Madmedea 14:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is nothing here worth merging, since it's just a pile of trivial, unsourced facts. The claim that the hat-trick originated in Guelph is outright fallacious, even. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. It appears 3/4 of the article is a copyvio of http://www.guelph.ca/living.cfm?itemid=70031&smocid=1618 as it is copied in verbatim. —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2007 (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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larry W. Gaiters

Larry W. Gaiters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable and non-notable.

The following copied from the already ongoing discussion about deletion from Talk:Larry W. Gaiters:

[edit] Research Inconclusive - Mark for Immediate Deletion

Marking this page for immediate deletion. While checking sources for Oneness Pentecostalism I did a search for any Larry Gaiters. He claims to have been to the Oxford Round Table, which is an education focused forum. While he may have attended, he was not a speaker or presenter listed on their speaker page: [13]

A news lookup at Google [14] produces some scant reports. There's a Zanesville connection, probably to Larry Gaiters Sr. (father?) who reported being assaulted by two women (1960's). The only Rev. Larry Gaiters of a "Southfield" near a Detroit newspaper was excited about a science fair.

There's no news of this person. The main links to him are this page and the website of his ministry. None of the claims have anything resembling credible sources. The only other thing I can find is this:

[15] Dr. Larry W. Gaiters Presiding Bishop and Prelate

End Time Age Deliverance Ministries Worldwide, Inc Toronto, Ontario

Member American Academy of Hair Design ... American Academy of Hair Design 901 SW 37Th Topeka, KS 66611 USA

Website: www.aahairdesign.com Phone: (785) 267-5800 Fax: (785) 267-2109

Their website doesn't have anything on him, so even this profile is probably bogus. Not sure if Dr. Gaiters knows of this Wikipedia page. And even if so, it's still blatant advertisement. Someone with "12,700 churches in 150 countries around the world, including overseeing 307 bishops that cover all 192 nations," would be in the news, would have articles written from him, about him, or books. The only thing I found on Amazon was his profile:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1E8LC9K5NTX40?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview Reviews Written by Dr. Larry Gaiters. RSS Feed (Southfield, MI - USA.)

It contains one review...

This looks REALLY shady to me. The only "real" Dr. Larry Gaiters I can find anything on, that is actually in a newspaper article, lives in Southfield, MI. The church claimed here is in Toronto. His church, "End Time Age Deliverance Ministries Worldwide" has zero stories about it.

No offense intended if this person is real, or if the facts are real, or just slightly distorted by a "fan", but I can't even confirm this guy's birthday, but I can find a man who's like his father filing police reports and as the surviver of a dead relative in their local newspaper, but no birth record or mention... local newspapers will almost always report on a "successful local son" who leads a worldwide church, and the last story from this newspaper with the name Gaiters has a Nixon-era headline.

Marking this for immediate deletion. Removing this reference entirely from Oneness Pentecostalism, and copy/pasting this report to the Oneness Pentecostalism talk page. --DeWayne Lehman 21:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies--I did not see this first--I started removing spam and then realized I could not find any documentation either, and the claim for number of bishops supervised seems highly unlikely. Retagged for deletion. DGG 22:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice to Editors - AFD Vandalism

User_talk:64.128.164.172 has been deleting the AFD tag from this article in violation of Wikipedia policy. A warning was issued, the user recommitted the vandalism, and a final warning has now been given. If you see the activity continue, please revert the article and feel free to report this user here to be blocked by administrators. I would like to point out that this is the same user that removed the speedy deletion tag this article originally had (but offered no explanation nor improved the article). Though that was an acceptable action under Wikipedia policy, removing an AFD tag is not. Thank you. -- DeWayne Lehman (talk • contribs) @ 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote For Deletion

Strong Delete - This person is not notable, the facts appear arbitrarily fabricated, and those who removed the previous delete tag offer no verifiable sources or reliable facts (but are in fact simultaneously "advertising" on other pages (see the Oneness Pentecostalism history page, and compare with history page on Gaiters) with unsubstantiated facts and name dropping of this Gaiters person. Even if verified to be a real person, this page has no redeeming encyclopedic value. Vanity page at best, fictional at worst. -- DeWayne Lehman (talk • contribs) @ 07:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A vanity page, not much improved since its initial creation. Notability and sources are lacking. YechielMan 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The poorly sourced article appears to be a vanity page. Dimitrii 18:58, 1 May 2007 (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. Multiple non-trivial reliable sources were not presented for verification and notability guidelines. --Wafulz 00:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gothador

Gothador (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Online RPG, no evidence of notability. Alexa rank of its website has been fluctuating, but since February it's over 100.000. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 07:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - No assertion of notability, unsourced. Fails WP:ATT. DarkSaber2k 08:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 09:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - A google search reveals 10 hits, only 2 of which are in context, 0 of which are reliable sources. Marasmusine 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and SALT re: WP:SNOW Matt Brennen 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Outwar clones are a dime a dozen (Urban Dead, Earth: 2025, Nation States, Starships!, Kingdom of Loathing, etc). No notability per WP:WEB, no article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. fails notability. Sephiroth BCR 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I would like to note that many of the previous posts are from former players of the game. This is a bit biased in my opinion. The article defines what the game is about and will be of interest to those who like to play MMRPG's in the future. The players might want to be more active in updating the article though. I did a google search myself and found many entries that were related to the game including the Wikki article. I would vote to definitely keep this article Midnightmedic 11:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Midnightmedic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • And how exactly can you tell they are former players just from their posts in this AfD? Maybe you could tell us how your search yields 'many' entries as sources, when another editors yielded only 10. Do you have any argument that isn't based in WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#It doesn't do any harm, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#It's useful, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS#It's interesting and attempting to unveil a 'conspiracy' of former players? You've failed to address the notability issue also. Whilst it is by no means the be-all and end-all of notability, this sites Alexa Ranking seems to be especially poor. DarkSaber2k 11:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected, I have no proof, but I do recognize at least one of the names. I am not saying that there is a 'conspiracy.' So far there seems to be little to no actual discussion, just delete or speedy delete with little to no reason attached. I'm not sure what 'proof' you are looking for, I did a google search and it returned at least 10 pages of content. Others have failed to show any proof at all or even leave a remark. I am also curious as to why you are so vehement against this entry.Midnightmedic 11:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Midnightmedic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • You stand corrected again: A google search reveals 10 hits, only 2 of which are in context, 0 of which are reliable sources. Marasmusine 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Failed to show proof or remark on the sources you say? Have you even read any of the comments here? I'm not vehement against the entry, just people who make keep arguments that are absolutely not based on any wikipedia policies bar how not to argue for a keep, and people who can only make arguments based round 'conspiracy theories.' Policies cited as a reason for deletion: WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:ATT. Wikipedia policies cited as a reason for keeping the article: None. Additionally, 'I recognize one of the names' is an extremely weak reason to claim many of the previous posts are from former players of the game. It's a big wide web out there, and many time I've found someone else using 'my' name, and I'm positive I'm not the only one. DarkSaber2k 11:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for pointing out my faults DarkSaber2k. I will do what I can to research the links you posted and add to that. I would also like to know how you only got 10 hits on a google search. I simply typed in 'Gothador' and returned, as I said, at least 10 pages. Happy surfing todayMidnightmedic 11:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Midnightmedic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • I didn't do the search, Masamune did, so ask him. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. So it's up to you to provide links to these 'at least 10 pages' (so I'm expecting more than 10 if there are 'at least' that many) that satisfy the reliable source criteria. DarkSaber2k 11:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • My bad, I mis-spelt the name during the search (typing 'gothandor' by mistake) Article still fails WP:ATT though, so my opinion still stands. Marasmusine 09:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Even if you had spelt the name right, you'd have found 94 websites of download directory listings and fansites. Not a single review or news mention. DarkSaber2k 10:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Is relevent, http://www.tucows.com/preview/363018 , google search returns approximately 10,300 hits, 16 relevant unique hits on the first 2 pages, http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-200701122007TheYearoftheOnlineGame.htm shows as #7 with average time logged (As of 12JAN07)SeanKelly1986 12:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — SeanKelly1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So your saying this must be considered notable because a lot of time is spent on the site? DarkSaber2k 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merely pointing out where in the article it was. More sources: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.gothador.com, http://www.gamewyrd.com/others/cyber884, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gothador, http://www.mpogd.com/games/game.asp?ID=2688, www.answers.com/topic/gothador . What do YOU define as a "Reliable source"?SeanKelly1986 12:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — SeanKelly1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't define reliable sources, wikipedia does. The top link wont work on my PC, the same goes for the second, I'll have to check them later. Urban Dictionary nearly made me wet myself laughing. You genuinely believe that is a reliable source? A web site where anyone can submit any word they've made up and have a 99.9% chance of having it accepted? As for MPOGD, a listing on a database that aims to list every online game in existence is hardly a notable claim to fame. It's like to trying to argue that you should have an article because your names in the phone book. As for Answers.com, I think you'll find if you look closely you will see THEIR article is actually credited to Wikipedia, as is nearly all their information. DarkSaber2k 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to see you back up your argument against Urban Dictionary with some sort of source. I don't see anything about the MPOGD site trying to "List every online game in existence" as well. In response to your comment about Answers.com ... that pretty much says the article IS being used and referencedSeanKelly1986 — SeanKelly1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(resetting indent) MPOGD is called the Multiplayer Online Game Directory (or possibly Database, can't remember without checking, but it doesn't affect the point). It lists online games, anyone can submit links to new games, which are then duly listed. I know because I submitted a couple myself. As for providing sources to prove the unreliability of a source, don't be absurd. You have to prove Urban Dictionary is reliable, not me prove it unreliable. And like I said with MPOGD, I've submitted things to Urban Dictionary myself. Anyone can sign up to be an editor and approve or disapprove of the new entries. I could join up, approve my own definition of myself and attempt to add a wikipedia article claiming 'but I'm listed on Urban Dictionary'. DarkSaber2k 13:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[16] I rest my case about Urban Dictionary not being a reliable source. And those other links check out as download descritptions, which are trivial mentions, not media coverage. Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.DarkSaber2k 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - why - 1/ Ive read the summary of the game and whilst it is slightly out of date (but as the game is alwyas expanding it could be out of date withing hours of typeing) is quite acurate and factual. It makes no appearance as an advertisement - simply an article on a game -- 2/ There is one point made earlier that QUOTE >>>>>>>>>>>> Delete. Outwar clones are a dime a dozen (Urban Dead, Earth: 2025, Nation States, Starships!, Kingdom of Loathing, etc). No notability per WP:WEB, no article. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC) <<<<<<<<< there are many outwar clones. Having read part of the list of MMORPGs and part of the DELETION list I see that apparently other games are not being deleted. That to me indicates this whole session as having been started as a hatewar against the game and more accurately either its creators or a personal issue with another player. It would seem to me that if Gothador were to be dleted - one must delet ALL games that have any simillarities to each oher keeping (after much research) only those with the most orriginality and only within a generic group teh apparently oldest FrankNStien 13:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC) FrankNStien — FrankNStien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As a matter of fact, I've tagged over 30 Browser-based MMOs for speedy deletion in the last couple of weeks whilst patrolling lists for accumulated junk articles, all but 2 of which were deleted for actually being non-notable. So once again Midnightmedic FrankNStien, there is no conspiracy outside of your own head. Now do you have an argument for keeping that isn't based on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT, or is that all you have like you the other two 'keep' sayers stated earlier? DarkSaber2k 13:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

KINDLY don't lump people who are posting things without any sort of sources, and those who ARE posting relevant sources in the same group.SeanKelly1986 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

When you finally post a reliable source, I'll consider changing how I think of you. DarkSaber2k 14:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep

This is a topic that seems to be slowly spiralling into a heated debate, and the best way to battle in this is with logic and facts. I will make it a point to keep my facts succinct and to the point to avoid any undue distress to any of the parties involved with this discussion.
Fact: Hunted Cow Studios[17]created a game that has spanned the globe in a matter of months, and has managed to sustain that game for years. This MMORPG game that we are currently discussing has an amazing 103978 registered users for their forum which is conjoined with their game, Gothador. That can be shown here [18]
Fact: Even with that many registered users, Hunted Cow Studios manages at least one game upgrade per week along with weekly updates and their recently implemented 24 hour live support feature.
Fact: Gothador has over 10,00 listings on Google alone [19] including listings on Big Online Games, [20] Tucows.com, [21] and File Planet. [22] These are sites that are regularly visited by hundreds of thousands of gamers everyday.
Any argument can be made as to why Gothador should or should not remain in Wikipedia, but the final decision is not going to be made due to who can try and defame another person. The only way that a fair and impartial decision can be made is by playing the game. The comradery that the game brings, the amazing ability for a small company from Elgin, Scotland to create a game that spans the globe, can only be experienced and decided upon as an individual. Gothador will not be diminished if we are no longer listed in Wikipedia, though the reverse should be assessed. If over one hundred thousand people play this online game with immense satisfaction and a website arbitrarily decides to delete our game from it's listing, then perhaps the people that enjoy the game could merely forget to surf to Wikipedia. Word of mouth, or in this case, pixel, is more powerful than any advertisement. Gothador will still be there, and we'll have more time to commit to our online hobby. --NytDunne 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)NytDunne - Gothador Supporter Nyt — NytDunne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter how many people have played it for how long, How many link directories it's been listed in or where it ranks on a google search (for websites, people generally hold an Alexa rank in higher regard than a google search). It also doesn't matter how much high regard you have for the developers. For all these 10,000 individual pages that have been mentioned, it should be quite easy to provide Multiple, independent non-trivial third party media mentions that are reliable (Criteria 1 of WP:WEB), yet this is not the case. The article makes no mention of winning an award (Criteria 2) and makes no mention of being distributed through a notable method (Criteria 3). The article has no Secondary sources, required to establish notability. DarkSaber2k 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny, until you'd mentioned it, I'd never heard of an Alexa rank, and I've been an avid internet user since 1996. Google is far more popular to the average person, topped only by MSN and Yahoo... and even Alexa shows that on it's sites. So for the average person, IE, the majority of people that create website traffic, they are going to get to their sites via MSN, Yahoo or Google. --NytDunne 15:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Alexa measures site traffic, Google is a search engine. There as different as cars and yachts. Of course more people go to google than Alexa. Like you said most people don't even know about Alexa until they are told their 'notable' website doesn't rank very highly on it in an AfD on wikipedia. If you were looking up what time a TV show starts, would you go look up the ratings for the show, or use a TV guide? DarkSaber2k 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Using a virtually unknown website that measures the entire internet's traffic is somewhat like trying to use a telescope to count every star in the sky. It's not going to be as accurate as some people would like to believe, as every website is going to be biased. If you were truly trying to be unbiased and go with entirely factual evidence, you'd visit the site and take the two-week trial so that you can have an opinion that is based on actual usage and not numbers. If Wikipedia wants to base it's listings on random ratings and visits, then you should probably start deleting articles, starting at the very first one... --NytDunne 16:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Yet another one Darksabre? Tsk tsk. You have somthing against these game don't you... I will be taking the whole thing to arbitration the minute I figure out how. I don't think the destruction of 40 odd articles in the same category is on. Not without a proper debate on the nature of the category... I also note that most of these were 'speedy deletes', unfortunately you and a few rogue admins seem to think notability is valid for a speedy delete, apparently it is not, i read the policy and it appears speedy deletes should only be for copyright issues. People like you will kill WP DarkSabre. I still note you have about ZERO actual proper edits to WP, you contribute NOTHING outside of 'Doom metal' which is about as notable as my arse, but delete anything that gets in your way using an incorrect method. WPs inherent beurocracy is the only reason you get away with it, because most of us don't have the time to fight all this rubbish. Back to the point, SeanKelly1986's links prove notability. Oh yes they do. Bjrobinson 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Got you facts wrong again Bj? Tsk tsk. Check who nominated the article. Guess what? Not me. As for just editing Doom Metal, your very bad at making people look bad you know. Even cursory examination of my contributions shows I'm active in numerous articles from Manhunt 2 to Command & Conquer: Generals, via Metalocalypse. I look forward to arbitration, then we can tell them who suggested I look at all these articles in the first place. But if we can move away from your personal grudge against me and actually discuss THIS article, that'd be great. Of the 5 sources provided, the top 2 I can't check on this PC, they wont load for some reason, I'll have to look over them later. But the last 3 sources would be laughed out of ANY article they were included in.DarkSaber2k 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah.... wow! Bjrobinson 15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And as for Speedy Delete being only for copyright issues, which page did you read? Because it sure as heck wasn't WP:SPEEDY. Failure to assert notability is not a speedy criteria? Then why o why does practicly EVERY speedy tag say 'Blah blah fails to assert to notability of this topic? For a laugh? Failure to assert notability is practically the ONLY criteria for a speedy deletion, along with advertising, nonsense pages and attack pages. It's so specific I'm amazed anyone could mis-interpret to be solely about copyright violation. DarkSaber2k 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Well you have recieved more posts I see and some good articles. There has been nothing but negative and harsh feedback to those replies, not just mine. Wikipedia will of course, do what it wants with this article and that is fine because that is their choice. Other concerns have however been voiced.

I am beginning to understand why more and more college professors will no longer accept Wikipedia in their thesis papers due to the process that is being used to edit the articles. You can delete my account after this for I will not attempt to help anymore. I have tried on other articles and found pretty much the same attitudes. Thank you and have a nice day. Midnightmedic 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• KEEPDarkSabre, since you yourself claimed that one should join and use the Alexa website before passing judgement on it, shouldn't you, by those standards that you set, do the same with Gothador before passing judgement regarding its validity? This is not a stab at you or the deletion post, merely an attempt to let you have a bit more insight as to why people might be fighting to keep the article on WP. In fact, I would be willing to pay for you to have a trial membership for those two weeks. (Pardon my ignorance regarding how to use this site. I'm trying, but internet impaired)~~Persephone — 67.174.47.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - I just finished the following search on google. Gothador -wikipedia -forum -message -board Each - removes those results, removing wikipedia and all message board (which are top of the unreliable sources list)). The actual results (if you follow it a page at a time): 94 websites are found. None of them are reviews, none of them are mentions in reports or news. The only sources you have been able to provide yourselves are downlink link pages that feature, at most, a paragraph describing the game. Far short of multiple non-trivial independent third-party mentions. I really don't see what more this is to say about this. DarkSaber2k 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I fight tooth and nail for these games. I fought to keep Iselkampf, Tribalwars, and am fighting for Starships! right now. All of which have sourcing ten times better than this article, and two are gone anyway. If there is any kind of merit at all, it get's my vote to keep. This article is just an unsourced advertisement, and a recreation of deleted material. It should have been speedy deleted long ago. Matt Brennen 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet Another Comment I just realized that almost everyone voting to keep is a single purpose account! WHY ARE WE WASTING OUR TIME? Matt Brennen 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• [23] Well here's the problem! DarkSaber2k 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • LOL, I was wondering where all these single purpose accounts were coming from! Matt Brennen 20:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Lacking in reliable/secondary sources. Urban Dictionary, FilePlanet, etc... are not reliable/independent sources of information. Wickethewok 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Keep - The game was reviewed and given 5 stars by Tucows (http://tucows.com/preview/363018) and the game creator was featured in the local newspaper (http://72.29.72.185/article.jpg) - Radneto 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Radneto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • • As respectfully as I am able: Please read the notability rules. Anybody can put five stars on anything at tucows, and as for the game creator, if you think a minor plug in a local paper makes him noteworthy, then please feel free to create an article about the guy. Please sign your comments. Matt Brennen 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Well according to the rules here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB - It seems the above articles are proof enough to justify the keeping of the article. There are also fan sites - http://www.guildofwisdom.co.uk and of course http://www.huntedcow.com which also fall into the subsections of the afore mentioned article and also prove notability. - Radneto 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) — Radneto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • I think WP:COI would be another thing this guy should (and therefore probably wont) read. Tucows, as a download site, is only a trivial mention on a download page. (Per the same WP:WEB Radneto is claming he read.) The 5 star rating is not an indicator of notability, as you could have requested fans of the game repeatedly vote it 5 star to improve it's standing. On the flip side, someone could just as easily vote it 1 star repeatedly and lower it's rating. A website for the game developer is hardly (here we go again) the multiple non-trivial independent third party media mentions required. And the same goes for the fan site. Hardly independent is it. DarkSaber2k 08:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • KEEP - Matt Brennen your a tool, and I know where your at bish! — 203.14.53.15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I find it upsetting to see some of the comments levelled at DarkSaber2k above. Can users like Bjrobinson please review WP:CIVIL? There's nothing personal in this afd nomination, and I would've tagged it myself had I seen it first. Marasmusine 10:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to cite DarkSaber2k on the WP:CIVIL as well. Being rude to people who feel that this page is notable is quite counterproductive.SeanKelly1986 10:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC) — SeanKelly1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If pointing out to people why their notability is non-existent in the most thorough way imaginable is rudeness, then yes, I was rude in this AfD. DarkSaber2k 10:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT - Yes - Ive posted from a single use account - I dont deny it - Untill this was brought to my attention I didnt even realise there was a registration and "argument" section in Wikipedia. Theres mention above of the game being mentioned ina local newspaper - agreed - it was. it WAS ALSO quite recently (1-2 months ago) discussed in an article in a NATIONAL DUTCH newpaper as it has a large following in Holland

You got a name for the newspaper and a link to article, or have we gotta guess? Oh and, you should have a look at this. DarkSaber2k 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and salt ... lacks WP:A to establish WP:N, and apparently it is a recreation of a previously deleted article ... also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoofmaster, which seems to be related. —72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) 18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7 web content, and block the socks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:WEB, as pointed out above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for reminding me to request the article be SALTED, this article has been recreated at least once already. Matt Brennen 20:39, 1 May 2007 (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 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VIJAYA KUMAR.N

VIJAYA KUMAR.N (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be a "vanity" page. The subject is not notable and the content is not supported by external references. WWGB 07:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 12:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be no more than a librarian who has nothing about him that is out of the ordinary for a librarian. Agreed that its seems to be vanity piece. Emeraude 12:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:VSCA, plus WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Definitely vanity. Delete. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not a notable person. JuJube 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Acalamari 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Gillyweed 11:40, 2 May 2007 (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Susan L. Graham

Susan L. Graham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page fails to assert her notability. Also, the only source is her own website. She seems to be a regular college professor who has articles published in trade magazines Black Harry 08:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Almost always, the holder of an endowed chair at a research-based university in Canada or the United States is notable. --Eastmain 08:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. What Eastmain said. Janm67 10:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "...has published in trade magazines"? Trade magazines like Communications of the ACM or ACM SIGPLAN '79 Symposium on Compiler Construction or IEEE Computer?[24] Also, as a woman who got her PhD at Stanford in 1971, that alone probably makes her notable as an early woman in CS. —Ben FrantzDale 12:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery, clearly notable. JulesH 16:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Very well known among computer scientists. National Academy of Engineering member. ACM Fellow. Founding editor of TOPLAS. 2000 ACM SIGPLAN Career Programming Language Achievement Award. President of the Harvard Board of Overseers. (All from [25].) Co-chair of an NRC panel whose report made newspapers from San Francisco [26] to Taipei [27]. Heavily cited papers on fault isolation, compiler transformations, run-time profiling, high-performance Java implementation, compiler flow analysis, context-free parsing. Even further down on her cite list, this paper on what is now called Graham-Glanville code generation is a standard topic in compiler design, the subject of 14 papers with "Graham-Glanville" in their title. This is a major figure in computer science, standing out even among named chairs at important research universities. The article could be a lot more thorough, but that's not a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep she is notable, but I suggest expansion of the article (not that I need to suggest that). Acalamari 18:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for all the reasons given above. Nobody should doubt the notability of a distinguished Professor at a major university like Berkeley. --Bduke 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- as reply to nom's "Page fails to assert her notability", how is this not a notable position: Graham is the (named chair:) Pehong Chen (far beyond average:) Distinguished Professor at (far beyond average university:) University of California, Berkeley --Myke Cuthbert 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator appears to have made no attempt check notability using external sources. The word 'stub' at the foot of the page is a clue that the present article needs expansion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathan Luckett (talk • contribs) 09:09, 28 April 2007 (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/withdrawn nomination (bad faith). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disemvoweling

Disemvoweling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Disemvowel is not defined in any published dictionary: [28]. I also checked the OED, M3, The Oxford Companion to the English Language and the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (1992) and couldn't find it. Google Book search gives 1 result. I tried to add a note to the entry about the word being rare and not a proper term for the phenomenon (cf. WP:NEO), but was reverted. This entry should either be renamed or deleted in accordance with Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary and in the interest of accuracy. A name that a linguist would use to describe it would be vowel elision or vowel telescoping. We are hurting our credibility by telling readers that this is a proper name for the phenomenon. I dread to think of one of our readers using this term in a thesis. And let's not forget issues of notability, which is clearly lacking in this case.--Richard Maxwell 08:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disemvoweling

• Keep. AFD is not clean-up. If you want to do an article on Vowel elision or Vowel telescoping, click on one of those links. And I'm trying to figure out this "fear" that someone will use it in a thesis: anyone relying upon ANY encyclopedia, even Britannica, as support in a thesis is already going to get in trouble with his or her thesis advisor. --Calton | Talk 08:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• In addition, I have to wonder why Richard Maxwell would expect to find any Internet-related terms in two 1992 print sources (The Oxford Companion to the English Language and the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics). And what were the publication dates of the other authorities he used, I have to wonder? --Calton | Talk 22:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I actually checked a two-volume Encyclopedia of Linguistics from 2005: [29]. The OED CD-ROM is from 2002, and as you can see here, it's not in the unabridged Merriam-Webster. (The website says so if it is and offers a free trial.)

  By the way, you mentioned above that the entry should be renamed instead of deleted, but that's not going to happen. All of my edits are being reverted. You just reverted my last edit now. How do you resolve that contradiction?--Richard Maxwell 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I said nothing at all -- zip, zero, nada, zil, null set -- about renaming anything. I said that if you want to do an article on Vowel elision or Vowel telescoping -- which "disemvoweling" isn't, no more than it's a dessert topping or floor wax, no matter you try to force the definitions to fit -- click on one of those links write about Vowel elision or Vowel telescoping where they belong instead of your original-research attempts to insert said material into Disemvoweling. All your edits are being reverted for the simple reason that they're NOT about disemvoweling. Clear? --Calton | Talk 13:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Move to a better name, or redirect if an article on the subject already exists. I presume "disemvoweling" is meant to be humourous (I got half a chuckle out of it, never having heard it before); given the number of Google hits (11k+), this could clearly be a search term; the best outcome is that the user gets redirected to the proper name of the phenomenon. As for your dispute with the other editor of the page, AfD is not RFC. cab 08:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Nominator fails to cite a valid reason for deletion. Because the article is not a dictionary entry, why does it matter that the article's title doesn't appear in a dictionary? The article is about a concept, which is known by a jargon name, not about the word itself. The article is also not about linguistics, so I fail to see why what a linguist would call the technique is even relevant. JulesH 09:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty good point, kind of like claiming a particular bull is actually a cow then saying you must get rid of it because it won't give milk. --Calton | Talk 23:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, term is in the Jargon File, generally considered a reliable source on computer-related slang terms, and there are other citations. The article could be improved per WP:NEO, but that's cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Nothing has changed since the last !vote, except the nominator and one other editor's attempt to describe it as if it were a term in linguistics, where it isn't used. The question as to whether the primary use is self-censorship with splats (G*d) or editorial censorship with deletions (dlt) is still open, but it appears notable and (before the quasi-linguistic additions) accurate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I just stopped by my library and looked up the word in two gigantic slang dictionries just a few years old from Cassell and Partridge. It was nowhere to be found. If it isn't deleted, then perhaps it should be merged into "censorship," as the word appears not even to be a neologism.--Richard Maxwell 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep this is a common practice on blogs, see ten thousand google hits. The neologism rule is mainly about words and phrases with very little following, perhaps because they were invented by those writing the Wikipedia article. If all new words and phrases were banned as article titles, then we couldn't have any such article as Virginia Tech massacre. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - if you exclude Wikipedia mirrors from the search, like this, it returns 685 hits. We are not supposed to be the source of new terms, but rather to report on them.
• Delete, per my above comment, only 635 Ghits after excluding Wikipedia mirrors. IPSOS (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm with Dhartung above, this is useful jargon. I happened on this entry because I was reading about the Kathy Sierra fiasco, and O'Reilly Report mentioned "disemvowelling" (two "l"s). That's pretty mainstream useage for a computer jargon term.3oranges 00:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, This term and practice is just one more way to claim fame in the small blogworld of sci-fi fans. Is this ever done in print? Imagine a book without vowels. What this is about is controlling Internet commenters with a Puritanical punishment. It almost always leads to the inevitible banning of those so inflicted. It'an attack weapon by cultists and nothing more. Marky48 04:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why would you want to do it to an entire book? The use makes no sense in that context. It's a technique of self-censorship (generally used for one or two words only) or forum moderation. You might object on principle to forum moderation, but it is generally agreed to be a useful and necessary process that enables focussed, productive internet-based discussions to take place without them descending into unproductive trolling, flaming and backstabbing. While the technique did originate with SF fans, it has now spread beyond that culture and is in wide use (for example) in academic blogs that discuss the issue of intelligent design. JulesH 08:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, blogger neologism with no reliable sources to indicate notability or widespread usage. No, the 'Jargon file' doesn't count.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The Jargon File (also published under the name The New Hacker's Dictionary, ISBN 0262680920) is generally regarded as a reliable source on computer-related jargon. Why would you discount it? Also, why do you discount the other sources that are linked in the article? Double-tongued Word Wrester Dictionary, for instance, is published by Grant Barrett, a professional etymology researcher, so counts as a reliable source per the definition at WP:V. The term has been discussed in professionally published magazines (see the link to the SFX column in the article), also. Why are these not reliable sources? JulesH 13:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Jargon File is regarded as a reliable source? A quick look at their antiquated website shows that the criteria for entry is to e-mail the sitemasters with an entry that can be shown to be in 'live use'. A bit of spam, and you're all set to promote your neologism. The fact that they managed to publish a book eleven years ago doesn't really convince me. Is disemvoweling in it?

The disemvoweling entry at Double-tongued Word Wrestler specifically says that 'This catchword has yet to be researched', so it doesn't count as a reliable source. The SFX source is pretty light as well, just the barest of mentions in a light-hearted column about something else.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment I find it amusing that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NEO uses a word that has a Wikipedia entry, and then says it should be avoided. I'm just saying, it's a circular argument. I have come across this word in many different places on the internet, but I can't say there's been a reliable source compiled. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newsong (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
• Keep has enough sources at a cursorry check and Primetime should absolutely not be allowed to dictate article content. Eluchil404 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note

The nominator, Richard Maxwell (talk • contribs • block log), is a sockpuppet of user Primetime (talk • contribs • block log), as proven by an RFCU. He is permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. This is a bad-faith nomination and his comments should be disregarded. -Will Beback · † · 22:56, 2 May 2007 (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. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PDphoto.org

PDphoto.org (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I don't see why the website is notable. It's someone's collection of 3000-odd photos, and that's it. There are many good photos (in my opinion), and they're public domain, but these facts by themselves don't warrant an encyclopaedia article. (They do make a great resource for Wikipedia, but that's not relevant here.) Its Alexa traffic rank as at 27 April 2007 was 51,331 - see here. A bit iffy 08:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Noble idea, but insufficiently notable to even approach passing WP:WEB. Caknuck 09:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While I've used this guy's pictures in some of my own work, I agree with Caknuck. I see no discussion of the site by independent third parties. JulesH 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable website. Acalamari 18:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment All the photos are by Jon Sullivan who might possibly be notable. DGG 02:24, 29 April 2007 (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 to delete. - furrykef (Talk at me) 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maiko Kawakami

Maiko Kawakami (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Contested speedy delete. See Talk:Maiko Kawakami. Anthony Appleyard 08:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Her only claim to fame (as the article even says) is that a British tabloid reported that she was stupid enough to think that a sheep was a poodle. How does that make her notable? I am not an expert on Japanese movies, so I can't really tell if any of her roles have been more than minor (since it appears most of the movies she appeared in have not been released outside of Japan). However, this article does nothing to make her sound notable. TJ Spyke 08:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Recent news coverage can only be trivial when considering the merits of the subject. We need some indication of notability beyond gullibility. Caknuck 09:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• She has some merits. I also added an IMDB link to the article. Stammer 13:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC) I've added some references. She is a professional actress, apparently well-known in Japan, and she has starred in movies, such as Violent Cop, that have been shown in the West too. I think she may deserve a Keep. Stammer 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Doesn't even seem to be true anyway, per this ChrisTheDude 11:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if the only reason for the article is the sheep hoax. If someone with more time and knowledge about her career could post that, however... DarkAudit 14:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Judging from the Snopes article, the poodle lamb thing is a hoax, which further lessens her notability and should be removed from the article. That would leave a two sentence stub with one source. Based on the info in her IMDb entry, I think this is her jp: article. If it could be translated and the article fleshed out with notability established, then I'd change my !vote. Caknuck 19:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, that's definitely her. - furrykef (Talk at me) 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless we get any notable information that has nothing to do with sheep. - furrykef (Talk at me) 19:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm not yet convinced that she's notable (appearing in some number of films without knowing much about those films doesn't say much; plenty of non-notable people have done the same), but at least we have something more than the sheep story. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Stammer. If she is semi-prominent in Japan, that's 125 million people that could look for her at Wikipedia. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Unenthusiastic keep. She's appeared on TV. She's appeared in movies. In Japan, these tend to require nothing much more than stereotypical looks and voice and the ability to ham with a straight face, but there are plenty of worthy exceptions and for all I know she is one of them; anyway, her merits and intrinsic notability have little to do with her actual notability. Ja:WP has an article on her. But if the article is kept, remove the crapola deriving from the Sun, a no-brow Murdoch tabloid that will print anything it thinks will boost its (horrifyingly high) circulation. -- Hoary 10:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - 25 mainstream movies, more than ten TV series listed at Ja: wiki, and the IMDB link shows that she ha major parts in at least some of them. Neier 12:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — I just added some material, translated (partially) from the Japanese Wikipedia. Maiko appears to be notable enough.--Endroit 10:44, 1 May 2007 (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. WjBscribe 01:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Academy Health Education Centre

International Academy Health Education Centre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable small college without any verifiable claims to notability. The 34 Google hits[30] (and none from Google News [31] or Google Scholar[32]) show that it exists, and that it is recognized to train massagists, but that's it. Rather spammy as well, but I rather have it thoroughly AfD'ed than speedy deleted as spam and probably recreated anyway. Fram 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete none of the ghits are from anything other than directory lists. DGG 02:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• The article has failed to provide any sources to proof its claims, hence I suspect it to be self-promotion. Also, external references to the organization is almost non-existent.--Kylohk 20:39, 1 May 2007 (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. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dražeta

Dražeta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Plain and simple: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory of (point 2) genealogical entries. Duja► 09:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This is proposal for deletion is ridiculous. There are many articles about surnames on Wikipedia like Smith (surname) (In USA, United Kingdom...), Jovanović (In Serbia, Montenegro, etc...), not to mention many other listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Surnames Furthermore, the point 2 from the link that you showed speak about biography articles. Please tell me why Dražeta article should be deleted and articles about other surnames should not? Vampire in the city 12:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really. If you take a closer look, 99.9% of those articles are disambiguation pages for already existing articles about people, with perhaps a couple of sentences on the top about the origin for the most frequent surnames. Smith (surname), carried by some 50,000,000 people, is certainly a worthy exception, but there are no notable persons of surname Dražeta. Do we really want some 10⁸ articles on each and every surname on the planet? Duja► 13:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I doubt that you calculated ALL those articles to have 99.9% - some of them are disambiguation pages (because nobody expanded them yet), but some other are not, so why you did not proposed all of them for deletion but only this one? Vampire in the city 21:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Punkmorten 20:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • So? You will delete the whole "surnames" category then or you have any criteria that decide which of those should be deleted and which should not? Please tell me which criteria that is? Vampire in the city 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see this as a directory. A directory is a telephone book type entry or a yellow pages list of red links. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep family lineages are a major research point in ethnology and we should have articles about them. Rather than deleting this article, articles about other last names should be expanded to have history of the lineage and not just a list of individuals with the same last name (of course, sometimes one lineage is split into multiple last names, and sometimes one last name belongs to several lineages - that is not the point here). In addition, there are Darko Dražeta, mayor of Ston[33] and Lazar Dražeta, a biologist[34] who perhaps might be notable enough for Wikipedia. Also, same article on Serbian Wikipedia is much more detailed, talks about family migration, various mentions of the name in history and so on. Nikola 08:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I planed to translate fully this article from Serbian Wikipedia, but I do not have much time for this at the momment. Vampire in the city 21:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable enough and quite interesting.--Methodius 15:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, we are making an encyclopedia, not a genealogy database. Punkmorten 20:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No? Then why there is "surnames" category in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Surnames Vampire in the city 17:15, 2 May 2007 (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 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pavilion City

Pavilion City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Incomplete, unreleased non-commercial/amateur video game with little evidence of notability or verifiability beyond its own website and chatter on various forums related to Grand Theft Auto and the like. Also nominating:

• Pliston

As another non-notable Gamemaker project by the same author, and prequel to the above game. Suspect both of these articles are self promotional, and there doesn't appear to be much in the way of substantial, reliable third-party sources on either of them. ~Matticus ^T_C 09:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Argument

Pliston can be found all over the internet. Not just on various forums. It has found its way onto games websites (most of them in Europe) and game galleries.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowcloud (talk • contribs)

• Comment. Popularity or widespread availability is not the issue here - it's quite normal for a piece of software to appear for download on lots of websites. The problem is the lack of reliable third-party sources reviewing the game, detailing its production, etc. A Google search for Pliston game[35] returns 71 unique results, almost all of them forum posts (not considered reliable sources), and the relevent results peter out after the third page or so of the results. "Pavilion City" game[36] returns even fewer relevant results - five on the first page (four forum posts and the Wikipedia article) and nothing on later pages. Considering the number and scope of gaming websites on the internet, that's a sign of relatively low notability for any game (compare with, say Cave Story, another free independent game, which has tens of thousands of Google hits, numerous reviews and interviews on websites not connected with its creator, etc). If you can provide some reliable sources documenting these games (not just sites offering it for download or brief reviews), then you have a case for keeping the articles. As these articles stand, the lack of verifiability is the biggest problem, as well as possible conflict of interest issues. ~Matticus ^T_C 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see any evidence that it meets notability requirements and the author hasn't provided any. Mark Grant 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree. The article does not provide sources from an outside perspective, and the article did not mention any previews from dominant gaming magazines and the like. Hence it is not notable.--Kylohk 20:33, 1 May 2007 (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 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maria fuentes

Maria fuentes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

can't find any info on this author anywhere, possible hoax Calliopejen1 10:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No references, and if this is really a "cult figure", it should be easy to locate some sources, but I cannot. Fails WP:V in its current state. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 18:00, 27 April 2007 (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 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teens in the City (novel)

Teens in the City (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete. Purports to describe a yet-to-be-released novel, by an author whose credentials, or even existence, are nowhere established. Would seem to fail any threshhold per WP:BK. cjllw ʘ TALK 10:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable novel. Jazznutuva 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable novel. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't even come up on Amazon, which is hard to accomplish. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, and it's so not notable that, as Badlydrawnjeff notes, it is not even on Amazon. Acalamari 18:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not on Amazon? Doesn't even approach the same universe that "notability" exists in. Maybe someday it'll be notable, but certainly not now. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not even published yet, and article strongly suggests it won't be notable even when published, as it seems to be only released locally. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Can't find any reference to the title in conjunction with the author's last name. Not notable. - Fordan (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2007 (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 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Georgy

Mark Georgy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

can't find any info anywhere on this "notable" musician. Calliopejen1 10:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep - I don't know this musician... but at the same time, an Egyptian musician who is notable will not have much written about him in English... it will all be in Arabic which won't pick up on any search engine I know. Jazznutuva 10:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An Egyptian musician with an album at #1 for ten weeks in the Egyptian charts would score some hits on Google, even in English. He doesn't. The page's creator, Bob Mears, had one other edit - the creation of Anthony Dilorenzo which was deleted as nonsense (see his talk page). This is rubbish as well. Emeraude 13:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete When was he born? When did he have his number one hit? When was the car accident? When did he almost die of alcohol posinoning? These questions are not answered in the article. There are not any sources listed, so none of this can be verified. Looks like a hoax to me. Would a Jazz musician in Egypt have an album named "The Sounds of Awesome"? I think not. --Cyrus Andiron 13:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:48, 27 April 2007 (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 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marla Ann Bennett

Marla Ann Bennett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

wikipedia is not a memorial, if there's anything truly notable here it should be merged into the relevant article. Calliopejen1 10:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - wikipedia is not for this sort of thing. - Richard Cavell 11:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for this. Over 5000 people have been killed in the intifada since it began (384 others in 2002), and unless they already passed WP:N for other reasons, this is not the place to list them all — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, because it's part of an ongoing and important historical topic. --24.154.173.243 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability beyond being a victim. StuffOfInterest 22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it's just like the articles on the various Virginia Tech students that were properly deleted. Nyttend 15:52, 2 May 2007 (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 and rename.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angelika Kluk

Angelika Kluk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prodded with a reason "Being a victim does not make one notable.". Prod removed by creator with argument "This is an ongoing case and it is not yet established whether she was murdered in the church or not, just that her body was found there; irrelevant - this is a notable case receiving heavy media coverage, much of which focuses on the victim herself." I still claim this person is not notable; Wikipedia is not a memorial. PS. Update - I also agree with renaming and refocusing the article on the crime, not the person. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Being a victim does not automatically make one non-notable either. I find numerous articles about her specifically in The Scotsman[37], The Scottish Christian[38], the BBC, et al. 282 Google News hits (and those expire after a month or so). 27,500 Ghits on her name alone, excluding Wikipedia mirrors. Many of the articles mentioned earlier contain detailed biographical information about her. She has wide name recognition and is a significant individual in an extremely controversial trial and a major news story. Since she's been dead for more than three days, it isn't a stretch to say that she's received significant long-term notice, and is therefore notable. --Charlene 20:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteRename and merge(edited to add) It should be renamed Angelika Kluk murder case since it appears to be notorious enough to justify an article, similar to Lindbergh kidnapping. or it could be kept with the present title like Laci Peterson. The stub article should be easy to merge. On review, there have now been 24 stories on BBC alone during the 5 week trial, and a sheriff, a priest, and a businessman have been questioned about their relationships, if any, with the deceased, while a handyman is on trial for it. For one thing, Wikipedia is not a memorial site, to tell the sad story of everyone who is murdered. For another, any violent crime in a fairly low-crime country gets widespread newsmedia coverage through the trial, but Wikipedia is not a newsmagazine. WP:N Note 3 says "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." Third, per the essay WP:NOTNEWS, some Wikipedians distinguish between what is newsworthy and what is encyclopedic. Only those crimes which get more than immediate news coverage need articles. Edison 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per excellent arguments of Edison and nom. Matter of fact, I think Charlene makes a good argument too, but every murder is tragic and any murder victim will get news coverage. This article strays too close to what Wikipedia is not - it's more appropriate for Wikinews. Plus, there's not much content here and we can always recreate if more encyclopedic information emerges.--Kubigula (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm relisting this. I'm not sure we should keep it, but it is a really BIG news story in Scotland. It isn't just a typical murder, it happened in a church, there's a high-profile trial, and the involvement of a local parish priest. There is multiple independent media coverage - not just a story on a wire but TV and major newspapers have followed it. I'm going to list this on Wikiprohect Scotland - so give some of those folks a few days to look it over. Myself, abstain.--Doc^g 10:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Piotrus and Edison. Yes, there's lots of news coverage, but Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. And the coverage really is just crime and court reporting. I wasn't able to find much in the way of "big picture" commentary, or broader conclusions that were being drawn here: no "Angelika's law", no moral panic. Ms Kluk's death was and is big news, but that's all it is, and it belongs on Wikinews because news does not belong in an encyclopedia until it gets turned into something more that just random noise. If, when the trial is over, the events generate published commentary and analysis, then we can create an article. For now, we can't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not asking for this to be kept. But consider that it isn't just a murder. It has been front-page news for several weeks - and is again today. It initially raised questions of the openness of RC churches offering hospitality to potentially dangerous vagrants. Then it emerged that the priest had been having a relationship with her. Then Donald Findlay QC, defending the vagrant, suggested (I think) that the priest had motive. Now apparently a Glasgow sheriff was giving her 'golfing tuition'. There are forensic evidence issues too. Here are the headlines from the Scotsman alone [39]. The BBC has run 24 stories so far, and the trial goes on [40] --Doc^g 12:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, but god bless her and her family.--Vintagekits 10:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• delete. If she really is a significant individual in an extremely controversial trial, as Charlene says, and this is documented in the article, I may change my mind. Currently the article says nothing that would distinguish her from hundreds of other (alleged) rape and murder victims. --Aleph-4 12:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Shug, yes well, quite. I could expand the article and provide impeccable sourcing. But I'm not sure I want to, and I'm not sure we'd want to keep it even if I did. But if you check the links I provided above you will see she is/was a significant individual in an [extremely?] controversial trial--Doc^g 12:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are say Doc, I feel the same way meself. Maybe we should invoke "wiki is not a crystalball" and lets see about this next month after the dust settles.--Vintagekits 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK delete without prejudice to recreation in a month or more if anyone wants. If recreated later, we can consider it again, it certainly should NOT be speedied.--Doc^g 13:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - 100%.--Vintagekits 13:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is a famous case and will continue to be for some time Paul210 13:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)