Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 15

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

The result was keep, non admin closure. Giggy ^Talk 07:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Marazzi

Paul Marazzi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mark Read (singer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My reason for deletion is neither has no other notablility on their own right other than their stint in a boyband so why should they have their own stub sized page. Dr Tobias Funke 23:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The band passes WP:MUSIC (They had 3 albums), and the singer caused the band to break up, according to the article, so he seems to be notable. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, A1 has toured asia and was reported by MTV Asia, I remembered those years ago. Of course, as a touring member he satisfies WP:MUSIC.--Alasdair 03:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. The band passes WP:MUSIC, but the singer does not seem to have notability yet outside of the context of the band. Until his new band meets notability, I don't think he merits a separate article. --Moonriddengirl 15:45, 16 August 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 as spam by user:Jimfbleak. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vision Critical

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM.Hu12 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11, so tagged with {{db-spam}}. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete could have been on the company's webpage it's so spammy. Ohconfucius 06:55, 16 August 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. Kurykh 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quantcast

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Quantcast. Was deleted three times under WP:CSD#G11. Hu12 23:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, tagged with {{db-repost}} per WP:CSD#G4. Would reccomend that the closing admin protect the page from re-creation. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  Speedy declined. Not a repost of material deleted at xfd. --- RockMFR 04:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material.--Alasdair 03:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed to just Delete for failing WP:CORP. Would use speedy had it been recreated again.--Alasdair 06:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:CORP. (Not sure why the alphabet soup, nom.) Note that G4 (recreation) speedy only applies to articles deleted through a discussion, not prior speedies under other criteria. I think WP:SALT is warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 03:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone provides sources demonstrating how WP:CORP is met. Nuttah68 08:58, 20 August 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 user:Anthony.bradbury (db-repost). non-admin close. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crosby Textor

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

PR piece. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Was deleted twice previously. Hu12 23:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If it was already deleted twice this should be speedied and not afd'd, esp given the appallingly low quality, SqueakBox 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• We all have seen these types marketing pieces come back over and over again, afd gives the immediate option of deleting future spam articles like this immediately under WP:CSD#g4.--Hu12 00:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• delete pure advertisement and fails to establish notability as well, SqueakBox 23:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete vanispamisement. Bigdaddy1981 00:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The two directors of this company are notable and have articles, which I note need cleaning up, but I do not think the company itself is notable, even though it plays an important role in Australian elections. --Bduke 00:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The company is clearly notable as are its directors. Google News Archives gets 150 results for "Crosby Textor" and 170 odd in the archives. [1]. However, the article is very poor quality although I don't believe it is spam. For one thing, Coalition and Australia are both mispelt. Capitalistroadster 02:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think those google stats prove the non-notability, the company I work for has 26,000 hits but no article and that is far more the norm for small to medium companies. I agree its too por quality to be real spam but it is an ad, SqueakBox 02:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment rather a good point, mine has 54,000 and operates in a niche market and has about 30 employees and (rightly so) has no article. Bigdaddy1981 05:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material. I suggest salting the deleted page to prevent further recreation.--Alasdair 03:09, 16 August 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 Sinai 48; redirect Tom Moncrieff to Sinai 48. Walton^One 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinai 48

Sinai 48 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tom Moncrieff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable band and band member. Also from the looks of it, very likely being used for promotional purposes. There's an apparent conflict of interest as the creator seems to be one of the band members. -WarthogDemon 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I was careful about making additions and deletions and not stating anything that wasn't independantly cited. I understand the conflict of interest, however I was very careful. Given that this project is sleighted for release on over 200 radio stations, it seems premature to delete something that isn't quite finished. There are several notable musicians involved with the album, so I see no reason to delete it. Many of these musicians are well known to music trivia buffs, who may want more information about these people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajmccarrell (talk • contribs).

Here is a policy that makes it not eligible for deletion, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. " Both Gary Hodges and Tom Moncrieff were part of Buckingham Nicks. The producer and backup vocalist Charlie Chalmers has also been a major player in the soul music industry with uncountable hits stemming from the 1950's on. This is reason enough not to delete. Ajmccarrell 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)ajmccarrell

• Weak keep I think the ability of this band to survive WP:Music is a little slim, given that Buckingham Nicks itself primarily survives WP:Music because of the undeniable subsequent success of Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks. Buckingham Nicks is often described, even on Wikipedia, as a "duo"--for instance, see AMG. But the first source on the page makes it pretty clear that Buckingham & Nicks themselves regarded the entity as a band and Hodges and Moncrieff as members. I am overall inclined to agree with Ajmccarrell that the article should be kept. I have attempted to tone down some of the unencyclopedic material included in the article, but it needs more pruning. The encyclopedic value of the track list of an unreleased album is debatable. While that sort of material belongs on a band website, I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. As for the Tom Moncrieff article, I'd do a redirect to Sinai 48. --Moonriddengirl 16:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sinai 48 based on meeting notability criterion #6 for musicians and ensembles mentioned above. Redirect Tom Moncrieff to Sinai 48 per usual practice in criterion #6. --MPerel 18:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 16:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is supposed to make the changes, such as deleting the flag and combining the articles?70.102.205.26 16:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)ajmccarrell

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Royal Tenenbaums. Singularity 04:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Tenenbaum

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

Doesn't need a seperate article, doesn't provide any information not given in The Royal Tenenbaums, and there is no information that could be added to it to give it more detail than the film article. SGGH ^speak! 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The entire article is a plot summary, and does not have potential to be expanded beyond that point, as there is no additional information about the character to be added, as he character is not of any significance other than within the context of the film. Calgary 23:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or Delete Redirect to The Royal Tenenbaums or Delete. Tinkleheimer 00:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the film article is the only mainspace that links to it, so I guess a redirect isn't needed. SGGH ^speak! 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • But that doesn't take into account the possibility that someone could type in his name as a search term. -- Kicking222 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A merge/redirect would seem to be in order. ~ Infrangible 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, a merge doesn't seem necessary, and it is a plausible search term. hateless 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete under WP:FICT then redirect. As the name of a key character it is a plausible search term. He's a great character and a terrific turn by Hackman but I don't see the outside significance. --Dhartung | Talk 03:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless real world reliable sources are found to give significant coverage Corpx 04:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect The character isn't notable enough for his own article, but it's certainly a viable search term. -- Kicking222 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. Notability is not inherited; he is not notable unless there has been outside-universe, credible, third-party sourcing about him (rather than just something related to him).

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

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

The result was Redirected to List of BBC children's television programmes . ELIMINATORJR 18:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CBBC On Choice

CBBC On Choice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This information is already available in the BBC Choice article; there is no need for this article, it is not notable. _TheIslander 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Redundant list that already exists at List of BBC children's television programmes. Other information in the article is already in CBBC Channel article. —Travis^talk 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Same reasons as above, already got information about it on the BBC Choice article, this can be expanded (into it's own section) if there is enough information about it.  Tiddly Tom  13:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Same reasons that are given above. - Boy1jhn 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• So. This is mentioned in a list. It could be added to an alternative article. It is already mentioned in other articles. This is an obvious redirect to appropriate target. Splash - tk 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

"This is mentioned in a list."

No, this includes a large list that is only a small part of another list that already exists.

"This is an obvious redirect to appropriate target."

Possibly, though there's no need for the snarky tone you took in your comments - I nominated this in good faith. _TheIslander 23:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, though without a complete consideration of the options. Those three that followed you, on the other hand, have reached incorrect conclusions from their own argumentation, having provided the very definition of a good redirect in their comments! Splash - tk 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Thanks ;) _TheIslander 22:30, 17 August 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. Singularity 04:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harold S. Wright

Harold S. Wright (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Most of the article is fairly inconsequential biography, but the contents of the 'Other achievements' section rise above being an assertion of note. On the whole, I'm not really sure about the article, so rather than delete I've brought it here. Splash - tk 23:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep unless subject objects, notability is reasonably establsihed and the article is okay but lacking refs, SqueakBox 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I don't consider being chairman of the Arizona War Memorial Commission notable enough. Clarityfiend 00:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I see no particular notability here, just a successful attorney who did some volunteer work. Accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I dont really see what his claim to notability is either Corpx 04:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article claims that he was chairman of an organization that does not have its own entry. The website for the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial (I'm not even sure that's what the article is referencing) does not mention Wright. As far as I can tell he is a corporate lawyer in Hawaii. Nothing against that, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of corporate lawyers in Hawaii, and that alone is not enough to get past the notability threshold. JCO312 04:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It's hard to judge the notability of lawyers when they have not been engaged in spectacular cases. Who's who in america is selective-- as compared to the subsidiary works such as Who's who in American Law, in the east, in Technology etc etc., and i give this some credence. DGG (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is little more than a biography. And biographies of non-notable people aren't suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. The only claim to notability would seem to be the Arizona War Memorial Commission...but there aren't even references to support that claim and, even if that claim was established, the Arizona War Memorial Commission isn't notable. Notability is not "reasonably established" by inclusion on one of hundreds of commissions in Arizona...Let us look to the "General notability guideline" for guidance: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage requires "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail [and is] more than trivial." This person fails the guideline, especially the "significant coverage" requirements. And, as policy tells us, "Notability is not temporary....Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events8." Long-term written coverage? None. Significant coverage? Zero. I submit this article must be deleted. JasonCNJ 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see anything more than the routine career of a successful professional, so he's only likely to be of interest to friends, family and associates. Mowsbury 19:24, 18 August 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. Singularity 04:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert E. Odlum

Robert E. Odlum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Being the first to jump off a bridge does not make you notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Information should be included only in Brooklyn Bridge article, not seperate. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Nothing in this article isn't already included in the Brooklyn Bridge article. In any case, this early Darwin award attempt does not make the man notable. —Travis^talk 23:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Already described in the Brooklyn Bridge article, although I hesitate to encourage others to be the first to jump off other notable high places in hopes of becoming famous. Pending a check of the newspapers for that year and afterwards to see how much coverage he got; maybe he gained some notability, although it would run contrary to my view that a newsworthy event, especially a stunt like that, is not always encyclopedic. Steve Brodie claimed to have taken the same leap and lived, but nay-sayer claim it was a dummy that went off the bridge. Edison 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete fails notability, SqueakBox 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, seems like a stretch to make the first suicide off a particular structure a basis of notability. A remarkable suicide, perhaps, but there's nothing special about this one. There are hundreds of potential structures here. First guy to jump off the Woolworth Building? There must have been somebody ... --Dhartung | Talk 03:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Brooklyn Bridge is iconic, as is jumping off it--as the first really famous large city bridge. I'd include him. My Proquest connection to the NYTimes is not working today. DGG (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but if you check the bridge's article, you will see that almost the exact information in this article is included there. So, why keep a stub which simply duplicates existing information? —Travis^talk 00:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bearian 18:47, 17 August 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 Speedy delete. Pascal.Tesson 05:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sell the lexus, burn the olive tree

Sell the lexus, burn the olive tree (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to quite meet WP:MUSIC guidelines; there is a lack of reliable coverage of the band. Crystallina 22:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7, fails WP:MUSIC. Tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:N, and WP:MUSIC. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:08, 16 August 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. This article is obviously adequately sourced - I have my suspicions about the reasons for its proposal for deletion. It does, however, need tidying and checking for POV. ELIMINATORJR 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geron Corp.

Geron Corp. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and unverified article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Geron Corp. Stoic atarian 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is heavily sourced and has received hundreds of edits from dozens of unique users. The company is among the leaders in the field of embryonic stem cell reserach, as the documentation clearly shows. I propose that this attempt to delete the article be immediately dropped. --Biotech1 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There are now 14 references backing the notability of Geron Corporation. I move to immediately drop this claim that Geron Corporation lacks notability.--Biotech1 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Geron Corp. has developed technology which may change healthcare and the human condition. The article should be expanded to include all the potential areas which may be affected by their incipient technologies, i.e. aging, disease, medical testing, agriculture, etc.Zabsz 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep this page, do not delete. It is so obvious religious radicals are attempting to erase this company out of exsistance. It saddens me that sick and injured people are waiting and hoping for treatments that Geron is working on, yet a few so called "fundamentalist christians" want to end that hope. Save this Geron wikipedia page, those who have requested the deletion, are a minority few wacko cult members.

• Keep. Needs an impartial view to check it over, but obviously meets notability requirements. Nuttah68 09:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I have made contributions to other wikipedia articles; this is my first to Geron's. Much of the information is factual, some controversial but is looks like the controversy is well discussed. Geron is certainly a notable company if only because of the controversy. It deserves an entry in wikipedia.Jrm2007 10:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Obviously the holy warriors would like to see this science go away. Maybe we should change the solar system wiki to show that the sun orbits the earth.

Keep. If Geron is to be deleted then you might as well just delete Wikipedia. Geron has the cure for cancer. It is under attack by people who do not understand Stem Cell research which is another totally separate business line at Geron. I have seen Geron repeatedly attacked by liars that claim Geron kills babies and such. There is no biblical basis against Stem Cell research. And even if Stem Cells are derived from discarded embryos (in which even those embryos are not harmed) this moral issue, if there is one, should be why there are so many discarded embryos at fertility clinics (1/2 of a million), and not how using stem cells extracted from them can cure most diseases. Regardless of the basis for the ignorant attackers of Geron, politically motivated attacks against an entry, should not be allowed at wikipedia. Suppressing information, particularly the truth is rather Orwellian and the hallmark of a totalitarian state.

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

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stellavista

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

Can't verify Square Enix connection. Unrelated LED manufacturer is probably not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Plinth molecular gathered 22:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete One sentance, fails WP:N. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is a South African LED manufacturer named Stellavista, when I searched for +Stellavista +LED -wikipedia. However, it's nothing to do with that ex Squareenix person. Also, I can't find any independent reliable sources for the corporation from those results, likely to fail WP:CORP.--Alasdair 03:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, surely a cromulent stub must contain information about what a company does, not just who founded it. Wikipedia is not a business registrar. --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. almost devoid of content DaveApter 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails notability. Carlosguitar 01:05, 17 August 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. Singularity 04:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salem Witches' Institute

Salem Witches' Institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This detail was mentioned once in the entire series. This article could never be expanded beyond what it is now. Even if the author were to give more detail in the future, still not important enough to exist as an independent article. Christopher 05:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - an off-hand mention doesn't deserve an article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Already mentioned in other Harry Potter articles, so no need to merge. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. -- Jelly Soup 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It is not encyclopedic, and it is a stub that is too small and unreferenced, and that probably will not change over time. LOZ: OOT 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of real world notability Corpx 04:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. n-n per nom.DaveApter 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — no real-world context. Harry Potter Wiki already has an article on this, so no need to transwiki. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:16, 19 August 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. Kurykh 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mercedes Ashley

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

Non-notable person. Porn actress with only the thinnest of assertions to notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Man It's So Loud In Here 22:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:14, 15 August 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. W.marsh 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wausau Center

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

Non-notable mall. Has remained almost entirely the same since creation, fails WP:N and WP:RS.

I am also nominating the redirect:

Wausau Center Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The shopping center is not notable. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Most mall articles on here aren't really notable either, but I haven't seen them tagged for deletion. Maybe this article could be improved a bit?--jonrev 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Other stuff exists is rarely a good argument. I've tried to improve this article, but there's nothing more to be said about it than "it's a mall in downtown Wausau, Wisconsin and it has these anchors". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Wausau, Wisconsin, while not enough for an individual article, it is worth mentionning for this city as it is an important mall for the area.--JForget 00:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Wausau, Wisconsin. I looked at this article in the past, once, too, and was unable to find much more of interest than what is already here. A redirect to Wausau, Wisconsin#Wausau Center might be reasonable, and it would be a shame to lose the photo here (which is a photo of Wausau, after all) simply because this article is deleted. If someday significantly more info comes forth, it could be re-spun to its own article. Skybunny 15:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It is a regional mall with 429,970 square feet of gross leasable area. I found humdrum coverage of the mall and of events at the mall, but most papers demand payments to see the full article. A typical article from 1993 says that " Wausau Center, an enclosed downtown mall, has at least 60 stores." A St. Paul MN paper from 1989 chronicles the mall as a center of dispute over costs to the city vs economic benefits to the county. The AP wire mentioned it was for sale in 1999 [2]. It seems to be somewhat notable because of crime, if nothing else. Someone beat up the Easter Bunny at the mall [3] and this story was picked up by Fox News.Robbers in 1993 stole the Salvation Army red kettle [4]. In 1993 the police called it a gang hangout [5]. The mall outlawed bandanas in 2001 to discourage gangs. The mall tried to use classical music to drive off the gang members [6] "MALL HOPES CLASSICAL MUSIC WILL DRIVE OFF RUDE TEEN-AGERS," St. Paul Pioneer Press - NewsBank - Jun 16, 1993. So it sounds like a better-sourced than average mall article could be written. This does not say it has any special historic or architectural importance, or commercial importance beyond other regional malls, which have had a mixed record with respect to being kept in AFDs. Edison 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Good job, Edison. Please add them to the article. I'm usually skeptical of mall articles, but if they all had this kind of sourcing it would be another matter. Controversies over relations with the community are encyclopedia-worthy content. DGG (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Aren't stories like the Salvation Army kettle being stolen or the Easter Bunny being beaten up incidents that aren't necessarily notable to the mall at all? You can see how if you actually have a sentence in this article that says 'In 1993, robbers stole a Salvation Army red kettle' isn't really...notable even within the context of a theoretical mall article itself. Crime happens in malls. Gang problems are probably not terribly unique to Wausau Center, but more a problem in large malls in general, depending on the locale.

(above...) This does not say it has any special historic or architectural importance, or commercial importance beyond other regional malls... ...this is why I believe a merge is the right thing to do, lacking more. For an example of a regional mall that seems to survive AFD criteria, have a look at Valley Fair Shopping Center, which is being torn down as this is written, and yet probably has more than enough to survive deletion. I'm still not convinced Wausau Center does. It needs more meat, like history, ownership, quotable public lauding or criticism of the complex...famous firsts...something. I would much prefer to see references to the 'possible sale' and the 'costs to the city versus benefits' here, than 'someone stole the red kettle'. If there were several of those, which can put together a mall history, I would be more inclined to support keeping this article. Skybunny 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think that the sources we are readily able to access (even in snip view, without paying some newspaper $3 to see a story) tend to cover "news" rather than substantial analysis of "history, ownership, quotable public lauding or criticism of the complex...famous firsts" which are apt to be found in ICSC publications ($$subscription), and in industry publications ($$subscription), that are harder to find or to read. It seems unlikely that a multibillion dollar industry does not analyze its own substance, with discussions of successful and unsuccessful malls, good and poor siting choices, good or poor management, successful and unsuccessful renovations, and special problems such as the hints of a crime problem found for this one (I think my town's gangs would eat alive the bandanna wearing, bunny bopping, kettle stealing classical music haters which seem to be the bane of Wausau Center, yet we have successful malls nearby with no such problems). It is really an issue for the Mall Project to get volunteers with academic library access or access to industry subscription publications to beef up these articles and to separate the wheat from the chaff. Edison 16:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I fail to see any reason for notability in the article. It is a run of the mill mall. Vegaswikian 02:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as being non notable. No sources are given and those so far found are rather trivial news stories, the majority of which the mall plays no part other than being a location. Nuttah68 09:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can come up with some sort of assertion of notability. Is it significantly different than average mall? Is "429,970 square feet" which "displaced eight city blocks" significantly larger than the thousands of other malls across the nation? Or was it built on an Indian Burial Ground and named after the tribe or the famous "Chief Wausau"? Or perhaps was it built on a swamp that was a former battle ground in the French Canadian Wars where many valiant soldiers of the Wausau Battalion perished? Or perhaps is it on the site of Fort Wausau which was the first fort in the northern plains? Or, shifting gears, is the mall perhaps the host of the largest number of crafts kiosks, and underwrites the nation's largest crafts and antiques show? These are the sort of things I think would be indicative of notability for a shopping center, providing a wonderful supply of primary and secondary sources, as required for notability for organizations and such. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing anything yet that can be defended on the firm grounds of notability. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Some good thoughts there on what couod make a mall notable. Being built on a historic site would not qualify something for its own article. If a mall were on the site of the an historic battle or notable cemetary that would rate a sentence in the article on the battle or cemetary, unless the mall was otherwise notable, or unless the questionable use of the historic site got lots of press coverage. There are a non-notable strip mall, a non-notable police station, and a non-notable campus of a notable college built on the site of a notable defunct amusement park called Riverview Park.Edison 15:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Thanks - but my (attempted) point was not so much that if the mall might have been built on a historic site, then that in and of itself would have made it notable per se, but that this sort of historical cross-reference would be presumably well documented with secondary sources, which would improve notability; and even more so it could be boosted on the notability scale if the mall was actually named after a historically significant and notable person, place, event, etc. It is sort of like the old notability guidelines for WP:SCHOOL, which I still refer to from time to time when trying to decide if the new Jones Elementary School in Tippewajaraville, Mississippi is notable enough to keep. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Wausau, Wisconsin. I don't see anything about this that makes it notable beyond being a local mall. The news coverage listed in one of the comments isn't so much about the mall as it is about events that happen to occur at the mall. JCO312 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete do not know what is notable.Harlowraman 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A second vote would be Weak Merge to Wausau, Wisconsin. The Mall is not too notable. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 22:02, 22 August 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 speedy delete. bibliomaniac15 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teenwag

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

Totally non-notable company. Obviously an advertizement. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, either {{db-repost}} or {{db-spam}}, your choice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc 23:36, 15 August 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 Speedy delete as spam, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MARKETiN

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account (User:Marketin) with no other edits other than related to MARKETiN. Hu12 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete--Hu12 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please give a reason why -- this is consensus, not a vote. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• reason per my nomination:)--Hu12 22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I didn't catch that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete {{db-spam}} is the best choice I can think of. Clearly COI spam. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:19, 15 August 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. Kurykh 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maritz Inc.

Maritz Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:COI. Also the IP edits are registered to Maritz Inc. Was deleted twice under WP:CSD#A7 and prod. Hu12 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete--Hu12 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, written like a WP:SPAM. Carlosguitar 09:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. If someone cleans it up and provides some sources (which surely exist for a 100 yo notable company?) I'll reconsider. Nuttah68 09:32, 20 August 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 Speedy delete as nonsense, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Johnson (conductor)

John Johnson (conductor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Text is clearly nonsense and has no obvious relation to the subject of the article (which is not clear either). The author has removed Speedy Delete and PROD tags but made no serious attempt to justify the article. DanielRigal 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G1 (or A1, take your pick). Deor 22:14, 15 August 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. Moreschi ^Talk 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roosevelt Mall

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

Non-notable strip mall in Philly. No notability even asserted; fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No notability at all, no important information worth merging. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No indication it is important beyond the neighborhood it serves, and no sources to satisfy WP:N. Strip malls have generally not survived AFD unless they have some unusual things going for them to show they are more notable than the average strip mall. Edison 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the article for Northeast Philadelphia. To call it a strip mall is perhaps misleading. The Roosevelt Mall is as large as a regular mall, it just lacks a roof. If it were simply a strip of stores along an avenue, I'd vote to delete, but as the major commercial area for Northeast Philly, it is somewhat more important. People have tried to kill this article before, and I can't hold off the deletionist tide forever, but I think some of the info in the article should be preserved in some form. Coemgenus 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How large is a "regular mall?" How large is this mall? I could not find a source. What the article needs is a source stating the gross leasable area which is the gold standard for classifying U.S. malls. Otherwise discussions of size are just an exercise in hand-waving. Edison 19:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I haven't been able to find an answer either. Here's a map of the area. [7] I'd say it's more than a half mile long, but how much of that is leasable space, I can't say. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not against getting rid of a separate article; I'd just like to preserve some of the info in the Northeast Philadelphia article, which mentions the mall already. Coemgenus 19:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • This page lists this strip at 560,439 square feet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The number of parking spaces sounds a bit small for that much GLA. Edison 04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep if there is sourcing. this is a regular size mall, with a similar number of stores and layout. For Philadelphia, even this sort of a mall is notable, though it was fairly grimy last time I saw it a few years ago. I think there's enough to keep. DGG (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I fail to see how its location and the bus routes serving it make it notable. Vegaswikian 02:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some attempt to establish notability is made. Nuttah68 09:35, 20 August 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. Kurykh 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden East Crossing

Golden East Crossing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable small mall in North Carolina, fails WP:RS. Only 500K square feet, no sources, no claims to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There are some discrepant numbers. The source quoted by the nominator says the Gross leasable area is only 219,057 square feet, but the same source says the "retail square feet" equals 583.183. These terms have sometimes been used interchangeably. Another source [8] says Total Gross Leasable Area (GLA) : 1,633,000, Total Gross Leasable Area Post Expansion : 584,176 . So by the largest figure it would be a super-regional mall, but by the smallest it would be less than a regional. The last source calls it "eastern North Carolina's dominant shopping center." which is something of a claim to notability, even if it comes from the management and is not independent. Is there an ISCA directory with some kind of official numbers, or a way to reconcile the figures? Edison 00:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think the 1,633,000 figure inclues outparcels. Judging by the mall map and number of stores, even if it were 1/3 vacant it couldn't possibly be more than 500K-ish. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing in the article asserts notability. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Vegaswikian 02:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 09:40, 20 August 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. Moreschi ^Talk 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Authenticism

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

"Authenticism" is Tim Saunders' personal "theory" about the arguments regarding the orthography of Revived Cornish. Whathojeeves is quite evidently Mr Saunders. That user has been vandalizing regularly the pages of people who are active in the Cornish Language debate but with whom he disagrees. Every one of this user's edits has been in bad faith as is this article. I recommend speedy delete. -- Evertype·✆ 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and warn user per nom. Obvious disruption of Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• speedy Delete per nom--Hu12 22:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)speedy part of vote was struck, delete was kept per DuncanHill comment. --Hu12 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no intention whatsoever of supporting or opposing the deletion of this article, but as the user who first welcomed Whathojeeves to Wikipedia, I do feel this debate should not be excessively speedied until s/he has had a chance to contribute to the debate. DuncanHill 22:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional comment especially as the nominator is one of the authors of the paper criticised. DuncanHill 22:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Authenticism, used in this sense, is a neologism, intended to be offensive to those to whom it is applied. I hope that the editor who generated this article may find a way to reconcile themselves to the consequences of the recogition of Cornish as a European Minority Language and the possibility that all parties will be reconciled to an official "standard" written Cornish. If this can happen, then there could be thousands rather than hundreds of fluent speakers and a blossoming of Cornish culture. . . . BTW, User:Evertype has identified himself on his userpage and is not the author of any of the papers criticised. I hope (probably in vain) for a constructive comment from User:WhathojeevesVernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - author Michael Everson is identified as one of the Authors of the Kernowak paper criticised in the nominated article, see this link [9] on page xiii. DuncanHill 23:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (again) - Oh Yes, apologies - Whatho faces a rather broad opposition, doesn't he - there are 21 "authentic" signatories. Michael Everson also typeset the document (a nightmare task, I would think!). However, as I understand it, from another signatory, no-one has any intention of forcing anyone to abandon their mode of speech or adopting an irrational alternative. Anyway, "Authenticism" is a neologism, unless you are referring to the instrumentation of ancient music. It's not in OED and sounds a bit Klingon.Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Another comment I have actually seen "authenticism" used in language-related discourse, in a similar sense to that suggested in the article (though it was in relation to the languages of former-Soviet Central Asia), and in poetry criticism in relation to writing only about direct-experience, however please do not anyone construe this as being a "keep" or a "delete"! I really don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of the Cornish Language revival movement(s). Got enough trouble in my life already. DuncanHill 23:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Ah. Michael is busily trying to suppress yet another idea with which he disagrees. This does rather tend to confirm a recent analysis of authenticist ideology on Cornwall24. Even if 'authenticism' *were* a neologism, Vernon's progression to support for suppression would be a non-sequitur. Not quite sure what Vernon means about 'Klingon', a tongue with which I'm unacquainted. Whathojeeves 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox for your theories, Tim. You invented this term "Authenticism" to try to belittle those people in the Cornish Revival who are opposed to Kernewek Kemmyn. this "term" is not found in the literature or any other source apart from your own postings to Cornwall24. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Vernon - you'll probably catch this tomorrow - are you on principle opposed to neologisms? If a word's non-neologistic statement is demonstrated, will you withdraw your objection to it? If not, then could you explain what in fact is the gravamen of your apparent support for Everson's attempt at suppression of dissent from his ideas? (By the way, Nicholas Williams, the main proponent of Authenticism, is on record as wishing to do away with Modern Cornish as spoken by the overwhelming majority of Cornish-speakers in Cornwall. That is why this article is important, and why agrreing to delete it will be tanatmount to aligning Wikipedia with an anti-humanist ideology). Whathojeeves 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Williams is not a "proponent of Authenticism". Only Tim uses this word. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just one more thing (as Lt. Columbo used to say) ... since the exponents of Authenticism insist that (undefined) 'authenticity' is the chief criterion for their acceptance of any variety of our language, it follows that to describe them as Authenticists can hardly be offensive. Nos da! Whathojeeves 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but probably rename/move/combine. The article seems to be based largely on recent material by the eminent poet Tim Saunders. While many others share his views he has the unfortunate habit of using his own ideosyncratic terminology which can be confusing. E.g. "Modern Cornish" = 'Cornish as used by most people today' = Kernewek Kemmyn, whereas generally "Modern Cornish" means some variety of Revived Late Cornish (used by a small clique). I will comment further when I've had time to study the article more fully. The topic is without doubt notable within the current debate around Revived Cornish. It may have wider relevance as similar disagreements are likely to arise whenever a language is revived/reinvigorated, and there are many such projects being initiated at present. See Language revival although the list on that page is far from complete. Evertype is extremely partisan in this matter, indeed he is the main publisher/propagandist for the authenticist faction. Mongvras 02:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I doubt very much that you can establish "notability". Saunders uses the term to try to pigeonhole and discredit people who disagree with Ken George and his orthography. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment While I agree that the article in its present form violates a number of Wikipedia's rules, especially through personal attacks and the use of idiosyncratic terminology, the ideological underpinnings of the Cornish Spelling Debate, alledged or real do merit mention. They should be put in a proper context and the article renamed. "Authenticism" seems too general a term to me. I would rather like to see this as part of an article about the Spelling Debate. The question is if this can be done in a way more in line with the general policy of Wikipedia. --Pokorny
      • Is that a Keep but rename vote Pokorny? Mongvras 18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Saunders' amusing article is merely a projection of his paranoia. By using the term 'Modern Cornish' in a way not understood by most people (apparently applying it to a form of Cornish based on the pronounciation of 1500!) he is deliberately trying to obfuscate. Either that or he clearly doesn't understand the sources he cites. And I thought his 'authenticists' (which by right is a term that should be applied to all Cornish revivalists - the spelling preferred by the Cornish Language Board was adopted 'for the sake of the authenticity of the language' (Ray Edwards, Kernewek dre lyther: Kynsa Gradh, Sutton Coldfield, 1994, p.iii) had agreed on a consensual spelling for Cornish called Kernowak Standard. Jan penrose 08:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Response to the above Tim uses Modern Cornish in the same way people use Modern English or Modern Welsh, to mean the language that most people use today, cf Wella Brown's A Grammar of Modern Cornish. Unfortunatly this term is ambiguous and something like Revived Middle Cornish would be clearer. By authenticists he means those who believe modern writers should slavishly follow the spelling practices of the mediaeval and Tudor source texts, even though such an orthography is poorly suited to the needs of modern users. The other side, the great majority of teachers especially, believe that Cornish should have a modern, largely phonemic orthography, equivalent to those used by Breton and Welsh. The reason for this is to help modern learners attain an authentic pronunciation. Hence the term authentic here is also ambiguous, it's all a question of what kind of authenticity, spoken or written you feel is most important. This is an important issue, one that is not confined to Cornish. I believe it is notable, but I'm not sure how to fix the terminology. The advice of other editors is sought. As far as KS goes, this is simply an experimental prototype devised by Everson and his associates in an attempt to unite several dissident factions so as to be able to mount a challenge to the KK majority. So far it seems only to have further confused matters. Mongvras 21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The normal term is "Revived Cornish". The word "modern" is nothing but confusing, particularly as Richard Gendall used the term for "Revived Late Cornish". Of course this was pointed out years ago to Tim, who persists in using it because it annoys people. How odd, Keith, that you should defend Tim's characterization of us because we "slavishly follow" medieval and Tudor source texts, when KK "slavishly follows" George's "reconstruction" of Middle Cornish of 1500, and since you reject genuine Cornish features like pre-occlusion as "a speech impediment" because they are later than 1500. As far as KS goes, Keith, it is not an experimental prototype. It is a proposed orthography which has succeeded in uniting UC, RLC, and UCR users -- as well as some KK users though you will try to deny it. It is the Kesva which remains outside of consensus. Your calling us "dissident" is part of your own propaganda. Maybe you do believe that the Kesva "owns" the Cornish Revival. That doesn't make it so. -- Evertype·✆ 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • If you read my comment you'll see that I am in fact agreeing with you over the confusing use of Modern Cornish. Kesva an Taves Kernewek/The Cornish Language Board is the established body representing and governing Revived Cornish although there are other smaller break-away groups that promote other versions of Revived Cornish. They not only disagree with the Kesva, they usually disagree with each other. KS is simply a proposal advanced to promote discussion, the draft report of the Linguistic Working Group say as much. It is by no means certain that it has the full support of all the break-away groups. Indeed Dick Gendall has described it as crap as we all know. None of which has anything to do with the value of this article. Most of your comments belong on the talk page, if and when the article is retained and we begin the task of Wikifying it. Mongvras 22:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Jan penrose account created 07.51 on the 16th Aug 2007, only edits are to this debate, and are copy-edited by Evertype. Accusations of paranoia are hardly a civilized way to conduct a debate. As to the original nom, if Evertype has seen vandalism, why has he never issued a vandalism warning to Whathojeeves or made any attempt to engage with him on his talk page? This so-called debate is in my opinion demonstrating all that is worst about both Wikipedia and the Cornish Language revival movement(s) (a movement which to this interested observer, seems to alternate between navel-gazing and playground squabbling and name-calling). As far as I can see, both the nominator and Whathojeeves have behaved less than properly on Wikipedia, and if their intent is to destroy what credibility the Cornish Language revival has in the eyes of the world, they are both doing a proper job of it. DuncanHill 10:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment So what's the vandalism warning supposed to look like today? It's so much work to trying and tag every vandalism compared to just reverting it.--Prosfilaes 13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Answered For those users who don't know, the set of vandalism warning templates can be found at WP:TT. DuncanHill 13:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't know who User:Jan Penrose is and the copy edits had to do with formatting trivia. I have not engaged with Mr Saunders on his talk page because of two years' of pointless discussion with him on other forums. -- Evertype·✆ 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Massively POV attack page. Arguably it could be moved to a name that people on both sides could agree on and fixed to be non-POV...but (a) that would be a new page, and one that could be created whether or not we delete this one and (b) I don't see why the basic concept couldn't be merged into Cornish (nothing from this article is worth preserving.)--Prosfilaes 13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Although Authenticism as a hypothesis is defunct, that is no reason for deleting this article about it. Compare the articles on Scholasticism and on the Phlogiston Theory, both discredited, but worthy of a place in Wikipedia. Morgowlez 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If you're voting keep could you please say so clearly, meur ras.Mongvras 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am saying keep. Morgowlez 20:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Morgowlez has made no edits but the above. -- Evertype·✆ 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If Authenticism as a hypothesis is defunct, then there's every reason in the world for deleting this article, since it's on a subject that's clearly not defunct and thus is a POV attack page taking up a spot needed by a real article.--Prosfilaes 12:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete regardless of the proper approach to the orthography of this language, the term is a neologism in this particular context, the article is exceptional POV, and it should be removed so that possibly a proper article about the general use of the term can be written by someone else.,DGG (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is simply a matter of naming. I don't doubt that Authenticism has some more general meaning within some field or other. Furthermore afaik in the present context it is only used in this way by the page's originator and by Tim Saunders, a person notable for linguistic innovation. In the present context we are concerned solely with Linguistic Authenticism which I think is a worthy subject for inclusion here. The Cornish material can then act as a stub until information about parallel cases is provided. To aid this a few lines and a link should be added to the Language revival page. That would be a constructive way to treat this material and build WP. I admit I cannot understand why so many people are willing to come in and support Evertype in his desire to trash this article. It's not as if he doesn't have quite a track record for deleting anything he doesn't personally agree with, and his interest here is plain to see. Mongvras 00:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Duncan, I'm grateful to you for your interest, but think that your description of most of the discourse on this page as 'debate' is more than a little over-optimistic. Mongvras' support is welcome, of course, although I would beg to differ from him on one or two details, but as for the rest ... oh *dear*! Vernon at least went through the motions of consulting somebody who agreed with him before trotting out his knee-jerk reaction (to mix metaphors horribly!), while the others have, it is transparently obvious, fired off a received opinion with such glibness that no fact, it is plain, could divert them. ¶ Do you remember that rhyme about Benjamin Jowett? It finishes 'I am the Master of the College,/ If I do not know it, it is not knowledge.' That is, to a certain extent, the problem with which we are contending. It has always astounded me how the Cornish language, sosmall and vulnerable, can excite so much fervent hostility amongst people to whome it could never be practically relevant, let alone any kind of threat. However, this is a subject for a careful analysis, when this present nonsense is over. For the timebeing, we are in the position of the legendary creature of which it was said 'Cet animal est très méchant: quand on l'attaque, il ce défend.' Our forebearance has been so extreme as to be culpable, and we have let ourselves be blustered to the edge of a disaster. Happily, we have recoiled and the Authenticists are about to see all their ambitions frustrated. For the time being, then, since you've been so considerate I'd like to put a few points to you. ¶ Firstly, 'Authenticists' is only one of the more printable terms for the clutch of groupuscules variously named (with differing degrees of inaccuracy and unfairness) 'Ninja's Gang', 'The Institute Clique', or 'Fascists'. The latter expression I particularly condemn, since, although they collectively exhibit an exagerrated authoritarianism, and although the disparate elements of their ragbag of ideas would, in coherent combination, be highly dangerous, none of them is, as far as I know, a fascist. Since their thought is formulated by several people, and since they make a certain existential 'authenticity' their touchstone, 'Authenticism' seems a preferable term to denote their ideology. Suppressing it will only make the use of other, less neutral terms, more likely. If you, Duncan, have a better expression than 'Authenticism', then by all means please share it with us. ¶ Michael Everson's attempt to suppress the expression of ideas distasteful to him is not surprising. The Authenticists, after all, have form for this. Perhaps, after the humiliating disappointment they suffered over the attempt to suppress the native edition of 'Bywnans Ke', they wish to gain the odd little victory here and there. In a way, I was slightly disappointed that he was so slow in his attempt to suppress the article. ¶ More alarming then Michael's drearily predictable vituperations, however, is the readiness with which people in the Wikipedia environment seem to have swallowed the constantly-reiterated falsehoods. The readiness with which people rush to condemn something of which, it is transparently and painfully obvious, they have no knowledge, is frightening. It is also highly embarrassing. For some time now, I have been championing the cause of Wikipedia, representing it as incapable of the sort of mendacity whereby a certain reference work described Kurt Waldheim as having served in the Austrian Army, and being a student when in fact he was a military intelligence officer. Wikipedia, I said, was a rational and democratic system quite free from the mendacity and the wilful obtuseness of the academic world. Friends of mine, on the other hand, insisted that, whatever it potential, Wikipedia was too vulnerable to the obsessive and the bully. On the showing of this page so far, I shall have to admit that my friends were right and I was wrong. ¶ Take care, Duncan: I wish you very well indeed. Whathojeeves 23:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I nominated this article for deletion because Wikipedia is not a soapbox for pet theories, and "Authenticism" in the context of the Cornish Revival is Tim Saunders' attempt to "classify" people who dislike George's orthography -- and orthography which Saunders himself doesn't use. It is not encyclopaedic. -- Evertype·✆ 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • This screed doesn't help you one bit. Please avoid personal attacks on Michael Everson and other people. Please try not to bring your disagreements here; WP:NPOV asks for an attempt to state neutrally the issues, not pushing your position. WP:NPOV means that the article should at least state their view in a way that they would feel is fair, even if you also state the view of their critics fairly. Most articles on groups of people, with an eye to WP:NPOV, spend most of the time describing their stated position and their documented actions, giving only a quick statement of criticism from diametrically opposed groups, putting their stated positions on their page. If you had followed these guidelines, then we probably would be a lot less sympathetic to Michael Everson here.--Prosfilaes 14:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It fails the Google test impressively: including "Cornish" in the search returns a single page of references, some of which are manifestly not relevant. By contrast, a search on "authenticism" by itself returns 3000+ results. I don't see any evidence that this isn't something someone just made up. Mangoe 20:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As stated above, I feel such an action would be too extreme. The title clearly needs qualification and I have already suggested Linguistic Authenticism. I have sought advice but received nothing constructive. I believe a useful and informative article can result if the existing material is used as a kernal and its field of reference widened. Is there some way of bringing other linguists into the discussion? Mongvras 22:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Zounds, Keith. Williams and I are real linguists but you reject everything we say because it doesn't suit you. -- Evertype·✆ 22:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No, because your conclusions do not follow logically from the data, as I and others have demonstrated ad nausiam in other places. All of which is in any case OT here. Mongvras 23:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • One comfort is the the time and energy that ME is wasting on this blatant attempt at censorship isn't going into far more harmful activities.

Well, no point in trying to argue a case before a blatantly nobbled jury! This issue isn't going away, and it'll be Wikipedia's loss if it isn't dicussed here. Martesen, gwell dhyn dysputya hymma oll war ann Wikipedi y'gan yeith ni - ni a'vydh yn-maes a dhrehaedh ann gwas 'na yna, pan na'woer ev gworra un lavar anydhi war-barth! Whathojeeves 23:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • Which being interpreted means Perhaps we ought to argue all of this in the WP in our own language ([[10]] ??) -- ?We won't have to suffer that fellow there/then? since he can't put a single sentence of Cornish together. Mongvras 23:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There was one other thing ... I can't help feeling that there are some interesting comparisons - and contrasts, of course - between some of the Authenticist attitudesm and the ideas of some of the proponents of Katharevousa. Whathojeeves 23:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Which is WP:OR, and not to be published on Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 12:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comments This is an English-language Wikipedia, so debate should be in English. In my opinion, both Evertype and Whathojeeves could benefit from reading WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and a whole host of other policies and guidance. Both might also be interested in engaging constructively with other editors through Wikiproject Cornwall. Perhaps gaining a wider perspective on WP's coverage of Cornwall could help them both learn to engage more constructively with each other and with the broader community, something which I feel would be of benefit to all. DuncanHill 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Keep this article. It provides a useful summary of the current position, To delete it would smack of censorshp. I agree with an earlier comment, that the writer needs to tidy up his or her nomneclature a bit to make it easier for the general reader to understand Zanzibar34 12:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; This is Zanzibar34's only edit.--Prosfilaes 12:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, Korais himself seems to have had some reasonable enough ideas, according to a book about him I once read. Perhaps the Katharevousa-Dhimotiki dichotomy is an over-simplification - Greek friends sometimes offer up to five variants on a simple sentence. The central point, however, is that contemporary and recent usage was rejected as inauthentic, with deleterious effects on speakers' intelligence and morals. Recapturing the language of a specified past will be a means of recapturing the its mentality. This has certainly been a constant theme in the writings of the Steam Authenticists, but I feel a certain caution before ascribing such a modality simpliciter to the Tudor Authenticists. With them, recapturing the language of a specified past seems and end in itself. NJAW's An Testament Noweth, for example, is a tour de force in which the somewhat macaronic language of the Tudor clergy is recreated with astounding conviction. Whathojeeves 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

PoI NJAW = Nicholas Williams who devised the UCR (Unified Cornish Revised) orthography around ten years ago. Almost all publications in this system are by Williams himself. Mongvras 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a point I'd considered, but is certainly an important one. The earlier (or 'Steam' Authenticist tendency, who advocated an Early Modern (c. 1600-1850) base for the Recent Modern (post-1850) language were certainly not a one-man band, although obviously Dick Gendall's work was the most eminent. The Steam Authenticists might have been in the running had they devoted to promoting Cornish the time and energy squandered on attacking the other tendencies. (I've seen literally hundreds of letters from them to offical bodies and funding sources of all kinds). The Tudor Authenticists would have needed not only to do this, but also to become someting more than a one-man band. We cannot but regret NJAW's decision to deprive us of the Cornish poems he might have written by indulging in vitriolic and highly repetitive polemic in English. It also occurs to me that the Authenticist attitude to Modern [n.b. in its normal] Cornish is intriguingly similar to that of some of the Haskalah crew to post-Biblical Hebrew. But it's getting late, so we can come back to this again. Suffice it to say that Authenticism is not an attitude confined to our language. Whathojeeves 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC) A

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guerrilla Geography

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

"A form of activist geography". When removing the prod, an anon said "references can be provided; instead focus on whether or not topic is wiki worthy". To which I say: without the refs we must assume the concept is non-notable and therefore not wiki worthy. -- RHaworth 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no source, no wiki. hateless 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - interesting but non-notable and unverified. I'm tempted to say "probably fringe"--Cailil ^talk 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete totally unsourced and no sign of notability. Nuttah68 09:49, 20 August 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. Kurykh 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott H. Duncan

Scott H. Duncan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails Notability. Fired from his position in an already small media market. Gte893m 21:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing notable about the subject. Whilst article has some content and links these do not do anything to support a valid encyclopaedic entry Dick G 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per very narrow scope of notability Corpx 04:14, 16 August 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. — Scientizzle 15:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoomerang.com

Zoomerang.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Zoomerang.com. Hu12 21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete --Hu12 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)changed to abstain Hu12 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Nevermind, I realize you're the nominator. You did give a reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam (G11), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, has been cleaned up some but still looks a bit spammy. Seems to pass WP:CORP at least now, with some decent sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, you forgot to put the AfD tag on the article itself. I fixed that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oops, thanks for fixing that.--Hu12 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but clean up/remove all non-neutral info. This company is popular among small businesses, schools, non-profits, etc. that need to run online marketing surveys on the cheap. The company gets reported on a lot in trade journals in articles about how to do market research. Crypticfirefly 02:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've cleared out some of the dross, added a few references in addition to the company's own website. Crypticfirefly 03:15, 16 August 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 Speedy Delete. Hu12 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weston crawford

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

Page was just created, but it's clear that some kid has created a Wikipedia page about himself. The "I love Courtney" part of the creation page is a dead giveaway. - Smashville 21:34, 15 August 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 and redirect to The Stage Names. KrakatoaKatie 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plus Ones

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

Does not fulfill any of Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs criteria. Not charted, not a single, it's just a track with some references to other songs. Mahanga^Talk 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Definitely does not fit notability requirements for music. Anarchia 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to The Stage Names. Precious Roy 14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to The Stage Names. The information is important to the theme of the album but doesn't deserve its own page. L4ck 0f 54n17y 15:05, 20 August 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. Walton^One 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jörundur svavarsson

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

Marine biology professor who doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. Clearly nothing in the article to prove that he does, and a quick search doesn't turn up anything. I can't exactly read Icelandic though, so there might be something there. fuzzy510 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:PROF, not much info in article anyway. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as of now, its just directory information and I do not see a reason to keep in the current state Corpx 04:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG below Corpx 04:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep we're judging the subject, not the article. Apparently neither the nom nor the commentators above bothered to even look at the web page--or at least look carefully enough to see that there is an English version as well as one in Icelandic (as is almost always the case for scientists). He's published 20 papers in the last 5 years alone, many in first rate international journals, such as American Naturalist and Journal of Natural History. He studies primarily Crustacea, and the literature tends to be very specialized, so I don;t expect much in Web of Science, but looking there I see 49 peer-reviewed papers total, with the most cited having been cited 39, 37, 33, 29, 27 times, which is in my opinion excellent for the subject. 13 papers cited 11 or more times, again very good for a subject like this. This much citation shows wide recognition as an expert by his fellow specialists, as judged by third party peer reviewed reliable sources, and thus meets WP:PROF. It isn't absolutely always true, but a full professor at a university will have generally published a good deal, and if a "quick search" doesn't find it, there's reason to go further. DGG (talk) 01:39, 17 August 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. Kurykh 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stax Inc.

Stax Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:NOT. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Stax Inc. Hu12 21:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. This article just isn't notable. I'd be willing to support a keep if the article could get some information to make it notable. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and then use as redirect to Stax Records. Otto4711 13:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• If Stax Records isn't known aa Stax Inc. then that would not be a useful redirect. The two seem unrelated. Leebo ^T/C 14:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's a logical possible search term. I don't really care whether it's established as a redirect or not. The article there now should be deleted regardless. Otto4711 19:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, there is nothing establishing notability in the article. If that changes I'll reconsider. Nuttah68 09:58, 20 August 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 as failure of WP:CORP and WP:COI. KrakatoaKatie 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] L.E.K. Consulting

L.E.K. Consulting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account(s) with no other edits other than related to L.E.K. Consulting. Was speedied three times under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Hu12 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

→ See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.lek.com

• Delete.--Hu12 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. -- no references demonstrating notability. 774 unique Google hits. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I was going to propose this for deletion too, since the article appears to be created solely for the purpose of adding "wikilinkspam" to other articles (as opposed to external link spam). =Axlq 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep That's funny - I get just over 58 000 unique google hits for "L.E.K Consulting" in quotes [11] . Some of those google hits say that the company has won the Queen's Award for Enterprise (see:[12]) awarded by Queen Elizabeth II on her birthday, heeding the advice of the Prime Minister and others. It is described as the UK's most prestigious business award. (official site: [13]) Other results suggest the company is notable in other respects as well. It has advised government bodies like the Strategic Rail Authority (here is a House of Lords transcript just for starters [14] ) as well as several famous companies. I'm not familiar with the business press, so it may be difficult for me to analyse such sources. I submit that if the company is notable enough for Her Majesty, it is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia :-) --TreeKittens 06:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • consider also the 5 seperate Spam WP:SPA WP:SPAM only accounts and IP's noted in the WikiProject Spam Case mentioned above.--Hu12 07:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Hu12 - I'm sure you have done excellent work uncovering spam at Wikiproject:spam, but may I suggest that you change your nomination? A google news search [15] clearly shows that this company passes WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CORP. The Queen's Award for Enterprise alone clearly show that it not a candidate for WP:CSD#G11 or WP:CSD#A7. A google books search [16] and a google scholar search [17] add to this perception. I don't see how the article content violates WP:NOT, and I don't really see that any of the internal links created by the accounts you mention are at all problematic - they are all fair edits in my opinion, added to relevant articles and should probably not have been reverted. Naturally only administrators can see the deleted contributions. Conflict of interest is a major concern, but WP:COI is not grounds for deletion. Furthermore, WP:SPAM suggests that deletion is a last resort if attempts to edit the article to comply with WP:NPOV have failed. I see no evidence of this. The article can easily be edited to comply with all our policies and guidelines. Deleting verifiable information on a notable topic because of a user conduct issues goes against the project's main goals, in my opinion. Again, I congratulate you on your work but request a more convincing deletion rationale. Best regards --TreeKittens 10:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • First the WP:SPAM accounts. WP:COI. It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote L.E.K. Consulting. Two of the 5 WP:SPA accounts do not publicly show contribs, so I'll explain. Agentpanda (talk · contribs) created the fist version (Only contributor not including tags added), Sebvan (talk · contribs) created the second (Only contributor not including tags added), Kid291uk (talk · contribs) created both the third and current version of the article. IP 59.154.61.35 (talk · contribs) (registered to LEK Consulting) has only edited the curent version. Kid1983uk (talk · contribs) has no edits outside LEK Consulting. Second, Non-Notable. It was speedied three times already, under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Simply having search results, may mean well paid Search engine optimization, however those results do seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. This is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Spam Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy of long standing. Advertising is covered in WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. --Hu12 12:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Let's not forget Gaslan and Kid1983uk wikispamming this article all over the place, singling out this company within the text of articles and in "see also" sections where it isn't appropriate to do so. I am willing to bet these are sockpuppets, especially Kid1983uk and Kid291uk (which I have just tagged). =Axlq 15:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
          • With all due respect, I believe both those accusations are unwarranted. Firstly, Gaslan has made no edits at all that refer to LEK Consulting. Secondly, Kid1983uk has inserted a few links to the article from Richard Koch, the co-founder of LEK consulting , and from other companies in the same industry. See [18] to verify this. Furthermore, a 75 page (including 8 pages of references) literature review authored by Prof. Werner Bruggeman is a detailed analysis of LEK Consulting's methodology in comparison with that of McKinsey and four others.[19] This provides third-party verification of its relevance to that article. I am not experienced with these kind of sources, and it seems that much of the third-party coverage is subscription only, so I think it would be good to get some specialist help here. Thanks --TreeKittens 17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
            • My mistake, I got confused. Gaslan wikispammed ARGE Consulting as you can see by the edit history. Apologies for that. I stand by the sockpuppet accusation of kid291uk and kid1983uk, however, as well as the assertion that the article was created for the purpose of promoting L.E.K. Consulting on other articles such as Management consulting. =Axlq 05:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
              • OK, no worries. I agree that the Kid(x)uk accounts are almost certainly the same person. All I would say is that it is possible he just kept losing his password and so had to create new accounts. I don't see any bad edits here and all of the articles he linked from seem perfectly relevant to me so I think we should assume good faith here. Anyway, if the consensus here is that articles with some WP:COI issues should simply be deleted, then I don't want to be the one to break it - I'm just trying to do the right thing by this article. Best regards, and thanks for your honesty. TreeKittens 12:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless non trivial sources are provided. Even the Queen's Award appears to have gone totally unnoticed by any form of press. Nuttah68 10:10, 20 August 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 Close. There was an AfD on this just a few days ago. If you (or any other editor, for that matter) disagreed with that closure, take it to DRV rather than re-nominating it. I withhold any summary judgment on the article itself. Hemlock Martinis 06:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spells in Harry Potter

Spells in Harry Potter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Ok, looking at the rather peculiar last afd, let's try and address some issues:

• it doesn't matter how much it is sourced: it requires multiple, independent sources: has anyone commented on the methodology of harry potter spells besides the leaky cauldron or whatever?
• on the "usefulness" rationale provided last time, WP:USEFUL: In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest - how is this not of localized interest? If no one has noted anything about these spells, that's a good indicator.
• also in terms of use; explaining the plot of the harry potter books or movies does not require one to know what spells are used; hell, the only one you need to know is the killing curse, although if you right it out "killing curse" I'm not sure what the fuss is about. ::P.S.; I also highly doubt simple translating the spell's name from latin is any claim of notability.... David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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}}

• Delete I don't see much in the previous AFD in favour of keeping that isn't WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, or "it's a good article". Wikipedia shouldn't be a dumping ground for Harry Potter fancruft, that's what the Harry Potter Wiki is for. Miremare 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - it should at least be merged. I have found the information in this article great use to me numerous times in the past. There are other articles wuite similar, such as 'potions in harry potter' and 'characters in harry potter' (you can see them at the link-box at the bottom of the article). It is a very useful concoction I think. Lradrama 21:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Miremare 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge. Although I am an avid editor of the page, it isn't encyclopedic. The information is very informative and useful, and should be kept in my opinion. At the very least, it should be merged with Magic (Harry Potter) even though Spells in Harry Potter is larger than that page. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If it's not encyclopedic it shoudln't, by definition, be in an encyclopedia. Miremare 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The information is obviously wanted at the very least, and I bllieve it could be a featured list if we just stop all of this nonsensical dicussion. The vandalism, the merging, the deletion. The page is needed and will get more treatment if we stop scaring everyone away. WE can't possibly merge it with the Magic page, becuase then Horcruxes will be moved to the page, potions will be moved to the page, the Deathly Hallows will be moved to the page, other objects will be moved to the page and the Dark Arts will be moved to the page by that logic and after that, the discussion will inevitably become: "Why don't we spilt them up into their former pages?" Everything should stay as it is. Therequiembellishere 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

*Strong Transwiki-The above now sounds ridiculous, even to me. It also isn't very encyclopedic, that's true, so it would do better on a fan encyclopedia.Therequiembellishere 01:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete—discussions to merge or transwiki have been met with disapproval, so this remains the logical last resort. Although, a new consensus to merge or transwiki would be ideal. Generally agree with the nom. — Deckiller 21:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The information is very interesting, well-compiled and organized, is fairly detailed, and is altogether rather interesting. That being said, it still has no place on Wikipedia. Again, this article deals with specific, in-universe information that would not conceivably be of interest to anyone who was not familiar with the Harry Potter universe. What's more, the article is almost entirely a directory of individual subjects that make no assertion of notability. The only original information is the etymologies, and those alone do not justify the list's existence, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think it's pretty intersting, and it seems like a lot of work has gone into it, but I can't see any logical justification for inclusion. Calgary 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft and listcruft. Baring that, Transwiki to the Harry Potter Wiki. -- Jelly Soup 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with a Protego Totalis. This is undeniably part of the Harry Potter universe, of which there are tons of articles in Wikipedia, and you sure can't call it original research, since this is all drawn from published material. I will not venture any idiotic suggestions that one must list which page of which book the spell was listed. Mandsford 23:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that the fact that other articles which discuss aspects of the Harry Potter universe exist does not exactly provide an argument as to why this article should be kept. Calgary 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Further note that all the latin roots &c. seem to all be from one published source on about.com. Hardly a volume of literature. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This cannot be a featured article. This cannot be any article. There just aren't any references to use to write this article, and the fact that a lot of people wish that weren't so doesn't make it so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but lots of cleanup and cutting out stuff is needed. This information is encyclopedic, and while it may only appeal to a select group, doesn't everything? Useight 23:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Response Most things may appeal primarily to a select group, but no, articles are not supposed contain information that is of value only to a small group of people. Calgary 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Response. 3 of the top ten most visited pages on Wikipedia have to do with Harry Potter. That is not a small group of people. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, irrelevant data. Seeing as how there's already an article on Harry Potter magic, any important data from this page can be merged to it. The article is very poorly sourced, and fails to establish notability with third-party sources. A total re-write, along with many more sources and especially third-party ones would be needed. Important spells can be noted elsewhere, and the rest can be deleted. The Clawed One 22:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Harry Potter wiki. The thing is, people seem to think overvalue Wikipedia, and undervalue any other wiki. People seem to take pride in the fact that stuff is on Wikipedia. But if the same information is available on the Harry Potter wiki, it isn't give the same level of defense. One of the main editors of this article came out and said that the information isn't encyclopedic. And many people in this discussion agree with him (including me). But that doesn't mean the information is uselss. It can serve its purpose well enough if it was on another wiki and externally linked from various Harry Potter articles, say Magic (Harry Potter). Pepsidrinka 00:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete Calgary said it best.. but please, if it's deleted, make sure it goes somewhere else first, because I want to be able to use it as a reference point sometimes -- even if it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. spazure (contribs) 03:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pure fancruft and almost a "guide". Transwiki is the best option here per lack of notability for "spells in HP", let alone a list of them Corpx 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, for such a successful series, this is a notable topic. Spells play a major role in the books. --musicpvm 06:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• On the basis that there is a HP-Wiki, transwiki this there, as suggested above, and possibly leave an external link on this title, to that x-ref. -- Simon Cursitor 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki fails several criteria for inclusion as an individual page in Wikipedia - WP:NN, WP:OR but would be useful information in the context of a Harry Potter wiki. [[Guest9999 12:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]]
• Heavily trim most of the spells keep, I think, Expelliarmus and the Unforgiveables, as the former at least has a standing (albiet weak) in popular culture, and the Unforgiveables are a major plot point and just might meet WP:FICT. Failing that, merge Will ^(talk) 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No actual sources to confirm notability, nor is this list needed to understand the plot. ' 16:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve sources for the exact same reasons I gave in the previous AfD. --Targeman 01:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wow, have any of you people voting delete read the last AfD? Evidently not, so I'm going to copy and paste my last response here: what about WP:IDONTLIKEIT? On another note, yes, Wikipedia articles ought to have third-party sources, but have you tried using common sense? Articles need third-party sources when, for example, they need proof that they even exist (like the moon landing hoax). However, I think that in this particular sense there are some pretty reputable sources, like, oh, I don't know...the books that they appeared in, maybe? What about books that have been previously mentioned, The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek or Magical Worlds of Harry Potter by David Colbert? I remember people complaining about the etymology sections about WP:OR, but seriously, some of the spells are just plain made up! Only the author knows how she made them, and to get in a twist about that is straight up anal. Get your heads out of your asses, guys, and use your energy to argue about articles that actually cause problems. GlassCobra 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I also oppose a merge for strictly technical reasons: this page is huge as it is, merging it into another article would be totally unwieldy. GlassCobra 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To the nom, "WP:USEFUL: In spite of this, there are some times when 'usefulness' can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest - how is this not of localized interest?" Way to cherry pick the quote, dude. Here's the entire thing: "In spite of this, there are some times when 'usefulness' can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information 'useful.'" First off, you're misinterpreting, that's local in the sense of distance. Even taken in the context that you intended, this is hardly localized -- in case you hadn't noticed, Harry Potter is read all over the world and has made Rowling the highest-earning author in history. GlassCobra 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Coment: You call WP:IDONTLIKEIT on us, but you should look at WP:ILIKEIT yourself. Yes, the many books on the articles note the spells, but that just means they can provide in-universe information. But third-party sources that establish the spells as important to the real world and relevant to culture are what is needed to establish notability. It's like saying that Provost Zahkarov of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri has notability for his own page because he appears in an important game. Unless a third-party has published an out-of-universe analysis of the spells, they fail notability. I have made many edits to pages regarding fictional things myself. And unless third-party sources are found, then there's no hope for out-of-universe content beyond what is discussed in the books, which are not basis for notability because they are inherently biased. Don't say "this article is notable because it's in Harry Potter", or "because it's in Harry Potter and that's important". The last sentence gives grounds for a subsection of important spells to the HP Magic page, but that's it. Third-party sources are needed for this. 13 references for a page of this size, regardless of how good they are, is simply not enough. The Clawed One 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Shorten and then merge with the Harry Potter article. Major spells could be done for there. This is too trival to be on a encyclopedia. --Hirohisat ^Talk 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- from the last nomination: "article is very encyclopedic; it not only provides the list of spells, it explains each one of them and includes more non-trivial information than many lists. It is properly sourced, IMO, and is a B-class article that is discussed constantly. I can't believe it would be nominated for deletion. Afd is not the place for your concerns. If you've got a problem with the references, tag it with {{refimprove}}." I agree with GlassCobra's comments; being useful is an excellent rationale for wanting to keep the article, as being useful is the purpose of an encyclopedia. It is most certainly not of localized interest; Harry Potter is one of the best-selling novels of all time. Also, I strongly oppose any idea of merging it with another article. It has far too much content. --Boricuaeddie 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this one is worth keeping -- and necessary to be kept-- because it crosses the boundary of the individual books. I doubt there are many other series of books for which I would support such an article. The reason why this series is different should be obvious to anyone not in a coma the last few months. DGG (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Per my reasons in the previous AfD, which had to do with all of the sourceable literature that has been published analyzing and recording the Harry Potter universe in an encyclopedic manner. Can't someone pick up one of these books and source the article already? Ichormosquito 05:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Also see my comments about the currency of these spells in the mainstream media. If a subject is notable, there's no reason why primary sources should be shunned. Wikipedia is not paper etc. Ichormosquito 06:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. From Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." I interpret this as meaning not that Wikipedia is a "general" encyclopedia, but that it aspires to be the union of all encyclopedias. Is it conceivable that there could be a specialized Encyclopedia of Harry Potter? Yes (I wouldn't be surprised if it exists already). That means that anything that is "encyclopedic" enough to be published in such an encyclopedia is also eligible to be included in Wikipedia. --Itub 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that is absolutely not what that phrase means. Notice how it says "incorporating elements" and not "incorporating [all] the elements". General does not mean that it can include anything and everything, down to the last detail, it specifically means the opposite, that wikipedia is meant to give a general view of things, general means global and without too much detail. Like many users you misunderstand this idea, which is why so many people keep creating pages about every single character in their favourite TV series, resulting in the lot being deleted or merged into the main article. Jackaranga 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, we disagree. I agree that there needs to be some threshold of notability, but WP:NOTPAPER takes precedence in many cases. Nothing should get deleted for being too specialized or too detailed. For being not notable, maybe. --Itub 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As per my arguments last time, and the arguments of Glass Cobra, Borricuaddie and others above, this page is useful, relevant and encyclopedic. The reason that this article (and not others which are actually full of more cr*p and less useful to the overall Wiki) is nominated for deletion is because the nominator dislikes it, and thinks that it is unable to be properly sourced. Websites which offer a critical analysis, as Leaky and Mugglenet do, are certainly worthy and reliable. JKR actually likes the structure and content of the websites so much that on more than one occasion she has provided exclusive interviews. If that's not enough, another editor (I'm not sure which one of us it was) found a pronunciation guide for many of the words and spells found in Harry Potter. If we are content to take information from fansites for articles such as Survivor 16, but are ready to delete this one because it cannot be referenced without going to the fansites there is clearly something wrong with Wikipedia. Another reason that it is here is because a lot of the information has been deemed uneccesary, but with the constant pruning of the article that is happening now the extra information put in by who I can only assume are IPs and newly registered users, the seven million times a spell has been used will be cut down to the first time or most notable time.

I do not support a merge with the article the current size it is. As I understand it, a merge is when we take the information from one article and put it into another. It is commonly used when the article to be merged does not contain sufficient detail for a separate entry (this one has more information that the article it has been suggested to merge into), or when two articles have the same content (also not true). As for deletion, I believe I have made myself clear there. A transwiki, on the other hand, may be successful. I would still recommend keeping perhaps a scaled down version of this article, with a link to the transwikied article with full information on all spells. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The spells are linked on so many pages that if you removed this ppl reading articles where the spells are mentioned wont know what the hell they are, if they havent read the books. CHANDLERtalk 11:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction or fantasy-related deletions. — Ichormosquito 10:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia is not a dictionnary, but these words would not be found in a dictionnary. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists, this is not a list in the sense that each item has a short description, there is worse for example List of Content Management Systems. The whole lot together is more notable than any character in the series, and maybe more than Harry Potter the character himself. Almost everyone knows Harry Potter is about magic, nearly nobody who hasn't read it knows who Hermione or Ron are, yet we keep their articles. Each spell is not notable but put together they are almost as notable as the universe itself. Many people don't know the title of each book, yet each has its own article, yet almost everyone knows, that Harry Potter is about magic spells. Jackaranga 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as in the previous AFD, all the arguments in favour of keeping seem to be WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, "it's encyclopedic" when it clearly isn't, or in one case that we should use our "common sense" and let it stay. If common sense were applied to this AFD, the only outcome would be this collection of fictional trivia being deleted from this encyclopedia. Miremare 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment as in the previous AFD, all the arguments in favour of deleting seem to be IDONTLIKEIT, NOTUSEFUL, "it's unencyclopedic" when it clearly is, or in one case that we should use our "common sense" and delete it. --Itub 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What makes a list of spells from a fictional universe "encyclopedic"? I can understand if people think the new WP:FICT is too strict (and can understand if a compromise is needed), but a list of every spell is overboard. Is it needed for a general understanding of the Harry Potter universe? Why not just cite a few examples on the Magic of Harry Potter page like most tertiary sources? — Deckiller 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No Itub, the arguments for deletion are 1: No multiple independent sources WP:V, WP:N. 2: Only of interest to people who not only read the books, but have a great interest in the minutiae of the books. 3: In-universe collection of fictional spells WP:FICT. 4: Fancruft WP:NOT#INFO. 5: Unencyclopedic, and I'd like to hear why you think otherwise. 6: Not even notable. Harry Potter may be notable, but notability is not inherited and there is already an article on Magic in Harry Potter. What next, an individual article for each spell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miremare (talk • contribs)
      • 1: We don't desperately need multiple independent sources for the spells (although I am sure they can be found), because these are easily verified from the books alone, and the notability of the spells is established by the notability of the book (which is verified by dozens of sources). 2: Spells play a large part in Harry Potter, Harry Potter is a highly notable series, and it doesn't matter to whom something is 'interesting'. I could pick some random article about a highly complicated science subject I understand nothing of, and say "it is only of interest to professors, so delete". 3: The fact that it looks in-universe is troubling, but is not a reason for deletion, because we can do something about it. 4: "Fancruft" is a nonsensical argument. 5: Why is it unencyclopaedic? You don't like in-depth coverage fictional subjects in an encyclopaedia, others do. 6: Of course it is notable, spells are one of the most important things in Harry Potter, you couldn't cover the books without mentioning the spells. Keep. Melsaran 01:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, if we want to get into true WikiLawyering, if I don't like deep fictional coverage and others do, then they would violate ILIKEIT. Such an argument offsets. That's why I don't use those silly "arguments to avoid" hyperlinks, regardless of my stance. The question still stands: what makes it encyclopedic in relation to Wikipedia's vision, policies, and guidelines? — Deckiller 02:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
          • True, but ILIKEIT says "let's keep it, I like it, it doesn't matter that it isn't encyclopaedic/notable/referenced". In my opinion, this article can easily be referenced, and is notable enough, because the Harry Potter series are very notable and spells play a large role in them. I don't really understand why we should delete every in-depth coverage of fictional subjects or popular culture, and keep everything related to science and history. You can't really say that Harry Potter doesn't pass the notability guidelines, right? Melsaran 02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
            • I used to take the same stance, that "notability can be inhereted". It boils down to covering things succinctly; the basics of spells in Harry Potter can be covered in a few paragraphs (citing specific examples of spells if necessary), because all this page shows is a list of individual spells. Inhereted notability can be taken to extremes; it can be a defense for having dozens of small articles about fictional concepts just because they are part of a notable franchise (after all, we don't have small, individual articles on aspects Bill Gates' lifestyle). The notability of the parent article should, logically speaking, mean that more real-world information would be available to show that subarticles could maintain a balanced, encyclopedic treatment of fiction. The key is at least showing that such information exists. Naturally, there are exceptions, but this is a scenerio where a list of spells is not the same as a complete, prose-based, and general article on Harry Potter magic (which I would be !voting keep on). — Deckiller 02:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - While I'm admittedly a newcomer to the AfD process, I fail to see the fuss here. WP:N(fiction) states that articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. That seems to be precisely what's presented in this list -- spells are sourced both in the fiction and in secondary sources, providing detail on the development and etymology of the spells. Notability thus seems clear, especially under the fiction guidelines, so I'd stress a keep. Ashdog137 21:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Just because it isn't of interest to everyone on the planet does not mean it isn't notable. The arguments for deletion seem to be "I don't like Harry Potter therefore it's not notable", "I haven't read the book and I don't understand the article therefore it must be minutiae", and "needs more sources". The spells are essentially another character in the book, and an important one at that (there is no story without the spells). It is also a useful reference. I found it very useful just a few weeks ago when I was reading the last book. It is clearly notable. In theory it could be merged with the article about the series, or the Harry Potter Magic article, but then that article would be too long, someone would nominate it be split, everyone would agree, and then were right back here where we started. I really don't understand why there is a crusade to delete this, but it should not be deleted. I don't see why the books themselves are not a significant citation, as they should be for a character in any other book. But if so, there are other books written about the topic by other authors. There are lots of those books listed at the end of the article, but they are not specifically footnoted. If someone who has those books wants to go back and improve those citaions, that would be helpful. But those grounds alone are not enough to warrant deletion. nut-meg 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Votestacking

User:GlassCobra has been canvassing for "keep" votes amongst those who voted on this article's previous AFD.

[20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Miremare 15:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Though it is wrong, he hasn't done much. Only two of these people might have been influenced by the message (Ichormosquito and Borricuaddie) The_dark_lord_trombonator had voted before the message was sent. Therequiembellishere 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have found my way here, anyway; but I did warn him about it. The opposing side can canvass for 9 deletes now, if they want. Ichormosquito 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Canvassing is not a tit for tat thing Corpx 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Ichormosquito already let me know that technically it was canvassing, if you look on my talk page. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that rule. I'll keep my wording more neutral when letting people know about debates from now on. GlassCobra 20:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well I for one am glad you did. I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. I would think nominating the same article for deletion every two weeks would also be against wikipedia policy, but what do I know... nut-meg 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• You have a point: ideally, consensus should count for something. ichormosquito 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well, I'd already planned to contribute before getting the note, I was just waiting a few days to see how the discussion was going, and I think it's obvious to me that there's not going to be any solution to whatever problems people have here on AFD. I suggest folks take their concerns to the talk page instead. FrozenPurpleCube 02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• (ec)"The opposing side can canvass for 9 deletes now, if they want." That's ridiculous. Two wrongs do not make a right. And what's this about voting? This is most certainly not a vote; it's a discussion. I just want to let you guys know that this page has been in my watchlist for months, and that I was well aware of this discussion before I was contacted. Please note that I also added {{not a ballot}} to the top of this page. I was in no way influenced by the message. --Boricuaeddie 02:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I totally agree with you Nut-meg. Contrary to Thereq...'s belief, I was notified by Glass Cobra and I am glad that I was. As a watcher of the page, I often click "diff" when it appears in my watchlist, and now I rarely look at the article from top to bottom (consequently I was surprised to see about 300 million tags at the top of the page). I may not have learned of this debate otherwise. It is such a shame to see an article so worthy for inclusion proposed to be deleted every other week, and Glass Cobra's message did not influence my vote at all. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I never said that it influenced your votes, and I'm glad you voted anyway. I was just arguing that he didn't do much anyway as very few responded at the time. I guess I read your times wrong Great Lord Trombonator, I apologise. Therequiembellishere 03:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra has stated that he was not aware of the rules regarding canvassing, which is fair enough. However, many of you seem to be entirely missing the point on this. It's not that the messages were likely to influence your viewpoint, it's that they encouraged you to make a !vote when you may not otherwise have voted at all, as at least two of you have already said. A mass encouraging of people with a particular known view to vote WILL seemingly change concensus in this view's favour, and this is why it is not allowed. Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking. Miremare 03:58, 18 August 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, default to keep - Nabla 17:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marquis de Sade in popular culture

Marquis de Sade in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Trivia collection, imparting no additional knowledge about the subject's cultural impact. Violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:WING Avi 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Sadistic Keep There were all sorts of ways that this could go off course, but it's a surprisingly straight forward article. The list of film and theatrical productions is proof enough of the fascination that the mean Marquis still generates 200 years later. Thus, it qualifies as a good start. Mandsford 21:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Mandsford and by the way, I like the "Sadistic" in your post! It is good to see the creativity! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is simply a list of appearences that the subject has made in various media. Unless there were actual information about the subject in popular culture, the list has no significance, and is a collection of trivial information. As for illustrating the subject's appearances in fiction, this is covered sufficiently in the subject's main article under the section "fictional works". There is no need for an entire article to give an intensely detailed list of such appearences, because the main article gets the point across just fine. Calgary 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Its mainstream productions of film and theatre, not references in manga and Simpson episodes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for two reasons. (1) This article was created largely as a way to keep this content out of the main Sade article. Without a repository like this, the main article would tend to accumulate this content. (2) At least most of this is pretty notable. For example, most of the plays and films are either biographical or based on Sade's works. If there were only a few of these, they would, indeed, belong in the article on Sade himself, but there are so many that they tend to weigh down the article.
  
  In short, when there are only a few significant popular cultural references to a subject, they belong in the article on the subject itself. When there are a lot then, much like any other section that threatens to swamp an article, they deserve to be factored out into an article of their own. That is exactly what happened here. This may not be a perfect example of how to do this, but it's a good one. - Jmabel | Talk 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as being a list of loosely associated topics. This is just a list of every time that person X has appeared in a fictional work Corpx 04:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The Marquis de Sade has been featured prominently throughout popular culture and has even had his name entered into the lexicon. This is not some forced article about someone whose persona is really not part of the popular culture. Antelan ^talk 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I fail to see how this is "loosely associated". The association between these topics is quite clear, since (nearly) every item listed has de Sade as a central theme in the work. If it were merely a list of every time de Sade had been mentioned, I'd agree the association would be loose, but we're talking about the central themes of cultural works. I'd suggest removing any references that are trivial (e.g. about half of the items in the last section), but otherwise keeping the article as it stands. JulesH 10:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - while many if not most popular culture articles should indeed be deleted, this one in well done and doesn't include the usual pointless trivia. IPSOS (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: While I voted keep, it would be nice if someone would turn this into more of an article and less of just a list. For example, it would make sense to discuss how the image of Sade has changed over time, how he has been used as both a sympathetic and unsympathetic character, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep yes, we all can and will turn it into a better article, though it will take more than a few days. Though this series of nominations might have been intended to remove the content from such articles, they will end up in improving and augmenting them. DGG (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Look, most items in history have been referenced in various popular cultures at one time or another. This is just glorified trivia that does not need it's own article. Violates many policies, including WP:TRIVA and WP:NOT and most "IPC" articles have been deleted rightfully. Biggspowd 21:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. — Deckiller 02:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just off the top of my head, Angela Carter wrote an entire book about the influence the Marquis de Sade had on popular culture. If the WP:NOT#IINFO problems can be fixed through editing and finding sources, shouldn't that be done rather than deleting the entire article? I'll give it a go --Bláthnaid 11:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is without a doubt an important topic. While it would be better served as a prose discussion about his influence on different movements and in different periods, it should not be deleted. Atropos 05:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's clear that a meaningful and well-sourced encyclopedia article can be written on this subject, and this article is on its way towards that goal. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do! - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - these "popular culture" articles frequently collect a lot of inane trivia, but they serve the very useful purpose of providing a repository for it, thus preventing the main article from becoming cluttered with it. Peterkingiron 15:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Better here than there is not a valid argument for keeping an article. If inappropriate content appears in an article it should be deleted, not given its own article. Jay32183 17:21, 19 August 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/Weak consensus to keep. Same result Giggy ^Talk 07:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional dogs

List of fictional dogs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Redundant with Category:Fictional dogs. How big do you think the article will be when it is a complete list of all fictional dogs?? Georgia guy 20:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see what informational or organizational purpose it serves to have a list of every fictional dog in existence. Keeping that in mind, if we were to remove all of the trivial/non-notable dogs, we'd be left with Category:Fictional dogs, which does a much better job of serving this article's potential purpose. Calgary 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is already very long and could get much longer. This is a perfect example of what categories are for. Useight 23:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because a category is more than sufficient. Dogs appear waaaaay too much in fiction to be listed like this Corpx 04:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It just takes one look at the article to see why it is better than a category: it provides additional information . for the category, one would have to examine each individual article, unless one happened to recognize a particular name. If any of them are not mentioned in the appropriate articles, they should be added there. The above argument seems rather odd--because they are frequently important, they should not be listed.DGG (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dogs are so common in fiction that a such a list like this is akin to making one like "List of protagonists in fiction" or something similar, and hence being loosely associated. Corpx 04:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or at least clean it out with a bulldozer. I've looked at this article, and the list of famous dogs, several times, and felt nothing but despair. Both are so profoundly, uselessly clogged with crap that I don't wonder if scorched earth isn't the best way to proceed. Ford MF 09:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe gut it so that the only entries left are those fictional dogs with their own Wikipedia articles... Ford MF 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I agree with User:DGG's assertion that a category would lose the information present here. --mordicai. 20:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per DGG and Mordicai. The most useful aspect of the list is its division by medium; if the list is deleted, Category:Fictional dogs should be subdivided into Category:Mythological dogs, Category:Dogs in literature, Category:Dogs in film and so forth. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but fold in deleted material that is not already into the category. This list would be served just as well, if not better, as a category. Ease of navigation trumps the short description of the dogs, allowing users to find the dogs they are looking for more quickly and get to the main article about the dog (or its parent article).
• Keep - There would be no point in this list if all the fictional dogs had their own articles, but many of them seem to be subsidiary characters in articles on other literary subjects. Lists are useful for indicating articles that are needed. Though many of these dogs do not need articles, this list serves a useful function, providing a means of locating articles referring to them. Peterkingiron 15:19, 19 August 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. John254 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Rife

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

Does not seem to have any significant sources that pass WP:RS, or much chance of ever acquiring them. Everything's referenced to sites trying to sell something in his name. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This must be a joke. Rife is extremely notable as one of the biggest quacks of modern times, and a pervasive influence within alternative medical quackery. Just ask any scientific skeptic or check anti-quackery websites. That is reason enough to have his article here where all sides of the story can be told. You can bet that alternative medicine sites do not tell about what a quack he was and how worthless his machines are in their many versions and variants made by lots of quacks who copy him. You can also check out the FDA and FTC who regularly bust people for using and selling such machines. It's criminally dangerous activity which they attempt to stop. A search of Quackwatch and its associated sites is enlightening. [29] If your concerns are about misuse of the article to promote his quackery, then follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines to achieve balance and solve weight and advocacy issues. -- Fyslee/talk 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep, the internet in english and german language (and many other languages i suppose) is full of garbage and ads around the strange pseudoscientific claims of Mr Rife. We decided to keep a german Rife-page during a similar discussion. Wikipedia may help some ads-impressed or interested people to better understand this issue. Like Lakhovsky, he is a sort of prototype-quack. Redecke 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, a well-known quack. The rife.org and rife.de websites are not "selling something in his name" (except maybe Google ads), they are simply everyday personal websites that may not meet the highest standards of WP:RS, but include many reprints of sources that do. I'm sure stronger sources could be found including quite a few scientific/medical journals that have investigated the Rife enigma. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• A couple of comments:

• The crucial question here is whether Rife meets any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). If he is, in fact, "one of the biggest quacks of modern times", we should have no problem finding a reliable, published source that discusses him. At the moment, however, the article is almost entirely dependent on lunatic websites (and a couple of ridiculous books by Barry Lynes, which certainly aren't "credible independent biographies"). If someone can find a reliable, published source that discusses the guy, I'll vote to keep the article. If we can't find any reliable sources, nothing in the article will ever be verifiable so it should be deleted.
• Bear in mind that it's possible that Rife's machines are notable but he's not. If there's substantial coverage of his machines in reliable, published sources (like the FDA and the FTC), we might want to create an article about them. Notability is not inherited though, so we don't automatically have to have an article about the inventor. Sideshow Bob Roberts 12:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Inventors are notable because of their inventions. He did invent a microscope based on sound optical principles capable at least potentially of visualizing some viruses. He also did hypothesize some notable nonsense. In either case, he's notable. A fascinating career. DGG (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, If the guy is found to have been even partially accurate, then egg should be on all of the "Rife was a Quack" detracting editors who have deleted large parts of the article (even Pub-Med sourced information) based somewhat on their feelings about him. Oldspammer 00:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely notable. scholar.google.com lists 1270 entries under his full name:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=royal+raymond+rife&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr= 82.208.2.214 21:09, 19 August 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. Singularity 04:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cars in the Ridge Racer series

List of cars in the Ridge Racer series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This seems to violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 19:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep seems to be a discriminate list. Doesn't seem to fall prey to the "hit list" of unsuitable lists on WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. --Oscarthecat 19:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:VG/GL and WP:NOT. Andre (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Follows the precedent of the "cars in gran turismo4" articles like 8 months ago. DurinsBane87 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete again, too much game-guide-ish material Corpx 04:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above and other "list of vehicles in games" articles. — Deckiller 02:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is like those silly "List of weapons in Foo" articles. Indiscriminate. Axem Titanium 05:54, 19 August 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. Singularity 05:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Cars in Project Gotham Racing 3

List of Cars in Project Gotham Racing 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This seems to violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep seems to be a discriminate list. Doesn't seem to fall prey to the "hit list" of unsuitable lists on WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. --Oscarthecat 19:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:VG/GL and WP:NOT. Andre (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Follows the precedent of the "cars in gran turismo4" articles like 8 months ago. DurinsBane87 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete' This stuff is really game guide material and should belong in a fan guide or a game wiki Corpx 04:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. IP198 01:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above and other "lists of vehicles in games". — Deckiller 02:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is like those silly "List of weapons in Foo" articles. Indiscriminate. Axem Titanium 05:55, 19 August 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. Singularity 05:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spacepol

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

This article is spam. It has been spammed across several Wikipedias, but has since been removed from many of them. Currently the only non-english article is in Finnish Wikipedia [30], where it is undergoing a vote for deletion (currently 26 votes for deletion, 2 opposes). Peltimikko 19:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)— Peltimikko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - The Finnish deletion debate referred to may contain unfounded and libelous allegations against third parties and as such be in contravention of US and Finnish law. Additionally, said page contains personal attacks and material which may insinuate dishonest or wrong-doing (including involvement in the editing or deletion process)on the part of the subject of the main article. Criteria applied for deletion appear not be be in keeping with general Wikipedia policies (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). Further, fi:wikipedia appears to have a practice of archiving deletion votes or debates indefinitely without removing possibly offensive material (see Wikipedia:Courtesy_blanking). There has been no administrator intervention to ensure that offensive, speculative and defamatory comments are removed from the Finnish AfD page on this and related articles.--88.114.56.7 04:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC) — 88.114.56.7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Comment - As an administrator for Finnish Wikipedia I checked the Finnish AfD and did not found any unnormal discussion there which could be referred as unfounded or libelous. --Ekeb 05:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  Maybe not abnormal for many Finnish fi:wiki users, but definitely libellous, unfounded and speculative. See the policies noted and the Wikipage for Libel and Slander. Also, AfD pages should be courtesy-blanked if there is no malicious intent. Translation can be provided to Meta in a closed discussion if there is any doubt about the libelous nature of the content. (Check, in particular, the AfD BLP page for the founder of spacepol)--88.114.56.7 06:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  You should also notice that the policies of the English Wikipedia are not used in the Finnish Wikipedia which has its own policies. --Ekeb 07:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet you seem to feel that the Finnish version of the so-called debate should be carefully considered here? Jreferee: Please let me know, if you feel translation of some of the Finnish comments found on the Finnish AfD Pages would be of help (due to their nature, I don't think it would be wise or morally defensable to publish them publically, though). BTW Ekeb, Finnish administrator, Wikimedia Foundation has certain issues about which there are no "regional variations" inclusing posting insulting or other material hinting at wrongdoing or dishonesty of living persons and organizations. --88.114.56.7 08:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask you to specify which parts of the Finnish deletion debate do you consider to be "libellous, unfounded and speculative"? Might this be someone questioning whether the people named on http://www.spacepol.ca/home/who.html themselves know about their association with this company? Speculative, I agree, but falls well short of libel. Unfounded, perhaps, but some of these people have now been contacted in order to verify the claim. Lendu 11:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Claiming or implying that someone likely does not have the credentials (educational, publications, etc.) that they are said to have, with reckless disregard for whether or not that is the case and thereby leading others to believe such things (see BLP AfD in Fi:Wikipedia) or implying that they have done morally questionable acts such as paying to be included in biographical works (that also libels the publishing company concerned, if is not true), just to name a couple. Good that somebody was finally fanatical enough to do "original research" and contact associates of this person. That will probably alert all concerned to visit Wikipedia and discover what has been written in Fi:Wikipedia about them.--88.114.56.7 12:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No comments from the named associates to this day. I wonder why? --Ufinne 11:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Spacepol has been on English Wikipedia for a year and a half. When was the article "spammed across several Wikipedias" and why is the urgency to delete the English Wikipedia article occuring now? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do you also notice the penetrating silence on this particular issue, after you asked this question? --88.114.56.7 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Spam and libelous allegations can be fixed. However, I could find no English reliable source material for this topic. If that source material is in Finnish, then it should be at least back by someone vouching for its content as posted on the English Wikipedia. Until then, delete as not meeting WP:N. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — Spam. That's what it is. --82.128.246.156 07:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable. --ざくら木 08:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jreferee. Article seems to be a vanity exercise. -- NordicStorm (t/c) 09:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jreferee. Vampcruftspam. --Fredrick day 10:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources except own home page. --Ufinne 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Comment You do all realize that you need to establish a reason to delete right? I'll admit to being unfamilar with the subject, but the article appears to be decently written with sources. It is not enough to say "spam" or "non-notable." Please elaborate as to why it is spam or non-notable. The Wikipedia process is built on logical discussion and debate, not straw polling and vote stacking. I also fail to see how what other wiki's are doing (or for that matter, the alleged conduct of editors of other wikis) is even remotely relevant here. Onikage725 13:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Decently written? It's ad-speak waffle - making various grandious claims with little or no link to WP:RS - if this organisation has made the massive impact claimed - why are there no english language sources to that effect? --Fredrick day 13:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the AfD and subsequent debate at the Finnish Wikipedia is largely irrelevant with regards to the AfD here. As for sources, it seems to be mostly its own website. The article reads quite a bit like something a copywriter would cook up. -- NordicStorm (t/c) 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment/Observation Jreferee has stated this article fails to meet WP:N and two others agree. I would just like to mention that [[WP:N] does not mention the word "English" anywhere within its text. Therefore sources should not be considered irrelevant simply for being Finnish. English sources are preferable, not required. However, the article could certainly use more secondary sources. I think the relative lack of such would be the best argument against it. Onikage725 13:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any references to Finnish language sources in the article (and if there were such sources, they would of course not be irrelevant).-- NordicStorm (t/c) 14:24, 16 August 2007

(UTC)

Hmm. Here I'd have to play the Devil's advocate. I would say that Finnish sources would weigh less than English sources from an English-speaking country. The threshold for notability is quite much smaller in Finland than say even Canada or England, not to mention the US or Australia. But that said... --88.114.56.7 15:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no Finnish sources either, if you look to Spacepol "Lähteet" (=Sources). Only grandious claims which just makes you laugh. --Ufinne 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Just plain ol' spam from a cross-Wiki spammer. Less than 10 employees and really hasn't done anything significant, only a lot of talk. --Tve4 19:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, spam, many big words about nothing. Pavel Vozenilek 21:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-World famous only in wikipedia.--Teveten 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The above User: 88.114.56.7 and 82.128.246.156 belongs to a serial internet pest and spammer and previous En-Wikipedia administrator and Usernet participant Mr Guy Chapman's alias crusade against honest users on the internet. User: Homing device 139.168.16.151 18:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

yes and? how does such information affect the notability of this article? --Fredrick day 18:58, 18 August 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. CitiCat ^♫ 04:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] After Midnight Project

After Midnight Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The Becoming EP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Build Something to Break (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable band—fails WP:BAND (having a song in a video game is not one of the criteria). No references, either. Lots of ghits but nothing substantial, far as I could see. Also nominating a download-only EP and an as-yet unreleased album. Precious Roy 13:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete one "expected" album and one self-released album isn't enough for an article. Notability not verified by any sources. Melsaran 14:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Damn, this is going to drive me nuts until I get home now... I know I've got one of their songs on my iPod. Delete - they'll break eventually, but right now the EP and regional touring, combined with a lack of reliable sources, doesn't quite make it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable enough, in my opinion. Criterion 10 states: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable... Nobody will dispute that Prey is fully notable. I see no real reason to delete. The encyclopedia will not be made any better by getting rid of this one, so what's the point? (|-- UlTiMuS 03:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It further states "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page." Precious Roy 13:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources establishing notability are provided. They are not quite there yet. Nuttah68 10:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation...once they are notable. Giggy ^Talk 23:35, 21 August 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. Discussions on individual merges should take place on talk pages. Bduke 12:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spinner's End

Spinner's End (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related articles:

Azkaban (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Beauxbatons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Durmstrang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Diagon Alley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Godric's Hollow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hall of Prophecies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hog's Head (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hogsmeade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Knockturn Alley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Little Hangleton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Little Whinging (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Riddle House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Shrieking Shack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

St Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

All of these articles deal with locations from the Harry Potter series of books (and movies and games, etc…). I do not believe that they belong on Wikipedia, between them they do give one independent third party source. Violating the primary notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability which states “A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.”. Furthermore the articles do not “contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources.” As mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Large parts of all the articles are original research – in fact since no sources are presented it could be said that they are completely original research which is unverified and often unverifiable Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. The articles may also go against WP:NOT#INFO given that they appear quite trivial. Harry Potter is obviously notable but that does not mean that everything in the books is - even items or places regarded as important or vital to the plot - if they do not meet the notability guideline. Notability is not inherited. A pub isn’t notable just because it’s in a notable town and there’s no reason why a fictional pub (or house or magic shop) should be notable just because it’s in a notable book. The articles are essentially an extension of the Harry Potter article and if they are not deemed important enough to be on that page do not merit their own articles. They may belong in a Harry Potter wiki but not on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Fancruft. Guest9999 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — It's quite clear to me that these articles are encyclopaedic/notable. The nominator provides no substantial rationale to delete other than I Don't Like It. (WP:NOT#PAPER) Matthew 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Actually I do like it, I find the information interesting and would like to see it available on the internet, I just don't feel that it belongs on Wikipedia as it violates several important guideline and policies and so will never be an accurate or reliable encyclopaedia article. [[Guest9999 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Keep — Despite all the policies this may or may not violate, the "Harry Potter Series of Articles" is a fairly good set of articles, and personally I found the Harry Potter stuf on Wikipedia to be quite helpful in understanding "Harry Potter" the Phenomenon, so I think at least at this time that it does perform a very good and reasonable function here. John5Russell3Finley 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per Matthew. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Question? Surely Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:No original research, WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT and WP:NOT#INFO are "substantial rationale". I may well be wrong in my interpretation of policy but I would appreciate a response explaining why. [[Guest9999 19:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Keep - First of all, the source is the books. Not OR. Some are more or less important yes, but I don't think it would be better not to have these. CHANDLERtalk 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Some of the sources are the books, some are fansites, some are blogs. Do the books themselves count as sources, if they do then shouldn't everything mentioned in every book have a Wikipedia page. Does this only apply for locations of significant importance in books which are well read enough - how do you define significant, how many copies need to be sold? The notability criteria is there for a reason. [[Guest9999 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Strong delete - per the very well-reasoned and -articulated nomination. Nothing has been offered here to rebut the policy concerns raised by the nomination other than "it's helpful" and the oft-bandied about and frequently mis-used WP:NOT#PAPER. "It's helpful" is just a flavor of WP:USEFUL and however useful an article may be it still needs to comply with all relevant policies and guidelines. The editor who referenced PAPER has been advised repeatedly exactly what the problem is with basing a keep on it and at this point I must seriously question whether he honestly does not understand that PAPER is not a free pass for any article or whether he is willfully disregarding that fact in the hope of confusing these discussions. WP:NOT#PAPER states explicitly This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. These articles do not. Otto4711 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge minor locations, keep major locations I'd count the following as very minor: Spinner's End (one book), Beauxbatons (not actually seen), Durmstrang (not actually seen), Hall of Prophecies (one book), Little Hangleton (There's several places in it - the Riddle House, the Gaunt House), but they're all fairly minor, and could be dealt with in an overview of minor locations), Little Whinging (Only one major place, the Dursley House), Shrieking Shack (a few things happen there, but they're best dealt with in plot summaries) St Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries (only really appears in Book 5) Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes (Only in Book 6) The others seem more important, and, while I don't object to merging them, I think they should be discussed separately. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Some secondary sources would perhaps solve notability and original research problems. Jakew 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• These seem to be prime candidates for heavy editing and a subsequent merge. These articles suffer from far too much in-universe detail per WP:WAF and need to be massively edited down, at which point most (if not all of them) could be safely merged into a single article, such as List of locations in Harry Potter. Having such detailed (particularly in-universe type detail) articles on fictional locations isn't really what an encyclopedia covers - perhaps there is an HP wiki or other fansite somewhere more suited to this level of information. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• The article List of places in the Harry Potter books exists. [[Guest9999 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Then that should be the target for the merge. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note that there's three tiers: Azkaban, Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade appear in multiple books in major roles; Knockturn Alley, Godric's Hollow, Hog's Head, and Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place aren't as pervasive, but still have significant roles in multiple books. The other ones are very minor places that generally in only a single book, and so are simple to decide on - merge 'em all! Major fan sites like. hplexicon.org could probably be used for sourcing. I'd be inclined to deal with the easy ones right now, but those seven might be worth a little more discussion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Timan123 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Articles for deletion is not a vote WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, it is a discussion aimed towards forming a consensus - you should give a reason for your position. [[Guest9999 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Merge: As per Arkyan and Adam Cuerden above. -Adv193 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Arkyan and Adam Cuerden. Wl219 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Trim and Merge per Arkyan. Baring that, delete and Transwiki to Harry Potter Wiki. -- Jelly Soup 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep only keep Weasleys Wizard Wheezes, Diagon alley, hogs head, hogsmeade, grimmauld place, due to the fact that they have been moderately important if not majorly important. The others havent.Ko2007 18:20, 15 August 2007 (USCMT)

• Comment The issue of "importance" has repeatedly come up in this debate. I do not see how importance is relevent, the spouse of a notable politician could be very important to them and have a great effect on their life but unless they were notable in their own right they wouldn't have an article. Importance is something that is subjective and hard to verify; notability as defined by the notability guideline is (to a point) not.[[Guest9999 23:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Basically, we accept that Harry Potter is notable. It's notable enough that sections have gotten split off of the main articles. This is standard Wikipedia policy, of course: Many articles have sub-articles to give more detail. Importance comes in when selecting what deserves its own article, and what should just redirect to a larger collection of information. The Harry Potter articles have fragmented too far, with very minor things getting their own article. It's fine for important locations that a lot has been said about to collect together the information on them. We have to figure out what's important. I'd say Ko2007 has it about right, though I'd add Azkaban (important plot elements in every book from the second on) and possibly remove Weasley's Wizard Wheezes (As a location, anyway - as a concept, it spans four books (The 4th to 7th), as a location we only see it in the 6th.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep them all for two reasons. Firstly, I greatly dislike bulk nominations. Secondly, the Harry Potter books are the most popular copyrighted books in history so it deserves a greater breadth of article coverage. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

• Merge Diagon Alley and its sidestreet Knockturn Alley into Diagon Alley - they always appear together.
• Merge Hog's Head and Shrieking Shack into Hogsmeade, the town in which they are.
• Keep Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes as it forms a major sub-plot of Books 4-6, with appearances in 7. However, revise it heavily.
• Keep Azkaban - appears in every book from the second on.
• Nominate Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place for a suggested merge with Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and see what people think. It has a minor role in book 6 and 7, but most of it happens there.
• Merge Hall of Prophecies into Ministry of Magic
• Merge Little Whinging into either Dursley family or List of places in the Harry Potter books, as preferred
• Merge The House of Gaunt, Riddle family and The Riddle House into Little Hangleton
• Merge the remaining non-notables Spinner's End, Beauxbatons, Durmstrang, St Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries into List of places in the Harry Potter books
• Nominate Godric's Hollow for merger into List of places in the Harry Potter books, and see what people think. It has a couple significant events, but not as many as I'd really think needed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This should reasonably sort out the articles. Note that a few non-nominated articles appear in this suggestion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It is a work in progress but I like your initial suggestions. -Adv193 01:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Aye, wanted to try and come up with something sensible, since, well, if we're not careful, List of places in the Harry Potter books could get pretty random - for instance, putting Hall of Prophecies there when it's just one small part of the Ministry of Magic. And, for that matter, one which had only a few pages - The climax of Order of the Phoenix might be said to start there, but it rapidly leaves there and goes out into the rest of the Department of Mysteries, after all. Very little actually happens in the hall proper. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and Redirect I still question having any pages which do not meet the notability criteria. I would suggest merging all of the pages and then recreating the relavent articles if and when third party sources can be found. [[Guest9999 01:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]]
      • That may be, but I think that properly sorting that is, frankly, too big of a job for one AfD. The Harry Potter articles are almost ridiculously sprawling, and it'd be better to work with the Harry Potter WikiProject than to do it by fiat. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Harry Potter Wikiproject states it is "an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Harry Potter universe" - this is at odds with Wikipedia policy and would be more approproate for a dedicated Harry Potter wiki or fansite. I do not see why it would be so difficult just to change all of the pages listed above to redirects to the List of places in the Harry Potter books article, it would then just be a case of expanding the current stubs. [[Guest9999 02:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Mostly Agree with Adam, abstain on Godric's Hollow and Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place. I know this isn't a vote, but I believe that the arguments on both sides apply to all articles, and it's a matter of judgment which are stronger for each. ** With regard to Guest9999's comment, WP:HP's charter is not a violation of WP policy, but as phrased it may go against guidelines. Matchups 02:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• To my mind it would seem to go against WP:NOT#INFO but I see your point. Although in almost all cases it seems that - rightly or wrongly - policy and guidelines are used in the same way on Wikipedia. [[Guest9999 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Aye, I'm not sure about those two either, hence why I listed them to be nominated - e.g. to have more discussion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - All are fictional places with no real world notability. A transwiki to a harry potter encyclopedia might also be appropriate Corpx 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into relevant articles, except for Keep Little Whinging, since it's mentioned in all the books. M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment whilst I don't think that being in all the books should be a criteria for keeping the article, Little Whinging does actually have a BBC source attached ([[31]]). [[Guest9999 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Strong Keep, for such a successful franchise, these are notable topics. All these locations play important roles in the books. --musicpvm 06:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support transwiki, assumning that there is a wiki for this -- Simon Cursitor 06:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• I second Adam's suggestions, with two differences. Merge Number 12 Grimmauld Place not with Order of the Phoenix, but with Black family, keeping the information, that it later became Headquarters of the Order. And Merge Weasley's Wizard Wheezes into Diagon Alley. The articles about Azkaban, Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade should definitely be kept, as all three locations play crucial roles in several Harry Potter books. Neville Longbottom 12:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the places are important in thier own way.Blackcat52 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Adam. Will ^(talk) 14:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Harry Potter Wikia (or delete) per numerous policies and guidelines, including WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF. These heaping amounts of Harry Potter plot summary articles are alarming; this is a balanced, general use encyclopedia that combines some elements of specialist encyclopedias; it's not a free-for-all to rewrite books. Furthermore, we are a free encyclopedia; we should not be substituting reading the novel by documenting every minor plot and subplot aspect. A general overview of major aspects of a plot or setting are good as part of a larger, academically-treated topic. I used to get Cs on papers that were mere 20-page retellings. — Deckiller 04:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Harry Potter wiki - These articles do nothing but violate writing in fiction guidelines and should be sent packing. Judgesurreal777 04:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Strong Relist as is frequently the case, these are of unequal importance. I am puzzled how anyone could who think Azkaban unimportant as a recurrent plot element--or could think some of the others as similarly important. Let someone who has read and understood the books nominate the weakest. There is no way of sorting them out here--all such mixed nominations have ended up by being properly relisted individually.DGG (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Nobody ever said that Azkaban was unimportant - what is being said is that it is not notable - WP:NN [[Guest9999 18:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Keep When a series of books this notable creates a fictional universe, the geographical components of that universe deserve their own pages. I think the manner in which locations in Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia are treated is a good example. Simply because the Harry Potter series is more contemporary is no reason why it should not be afforded the same treatment by wikipedia. Bjoel5785 19:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.

OR, delete also the following articles: Byss, Alderaan, Ebaq 9, Hoth, Lehon, Corellia, Bajor, Benzar, Khitomer, Qo'noS, Arda, Black Gate (Middle-earth), Misty Mountains, well, I won't go on. You can see the idea - these are just randomly selected articles about places in other fictional series (Star Trek, Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings, respectively. I could have picked other series but those were the ones that sprung to mind first). None of them are likely to have any "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", because they can't be separated from their subject!! I haven't checked each article so there might be an exception, but if so there are many more articles of this type to replace it By the definition of "notable" above, none of these articles, or any article about a fictional place, person, or event etc, can EVER be noteworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. And yet there can be no argument that these articles are not looked at and considered useful by thousands of readers and researchers. Either we accept that articles such as these have a place in Wikipedia, or we accept that there are literally thousands of articles about fictional places, people etc which need to be deleted for being "not notable". I will not be party to such a massacre, so I choose to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules to supercede a blatant use of the letter, rather than the spirit, of WP:N.

If this AfD closes as keep, I will be eager to help merge some of these pages into other articles, not because of their notability, but because the quantity of information in some of them does not justify separation. However, I believe that articles about fictional places should be judged based on their notability within the relevant work of fiction rather than the real world. If there is enough information given in canon to create a decently long article, it meets my critera for notability on Wikipedia. Happy-melon 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Please read WP:FICT; it provides a logical extension of WP:N for fiction. — Deckiller 03:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED might also be helpful. [[Guest9999 03:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]

WP:FICT is essentially what I have a problem with, not WP:N (which works extremely well for factual articles). Your point on WP:NOTINHERITED is taken and will, as I mention, result in my active participation in the merging of some of these articles which cannot justify their notability within the subject matter (for instance, Beauxbatons and Durmstrang). However, I do not believe that my argument is covered by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which, incidentally, is neither policy nor guidline). I am not arguing that one other article exists. I am not even arguing that twenty other articles exist. I am arguing that a measurable fraction of the entire article namespace fails the same criteria. The fact that these articles exist, are read by Wikipedia readers and are useful to them, implies that it is policy, not the articles, that are at fault. Happy-melon 10:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The guideline was updated recently to adhere to recent movements at AfD and merger/transwiki proposals, as well as to comply to WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:N. The problem doesn't really lie with WP:FICT, since it's now a logical extention of those guidelines and policies. You are right that there are still a ton of fiction articles that should comply with the new WP:FICT should it remain consensus. As for useful, well, a phonebook or directory is useful, as is a detailed summary of a work's plot (the plot consists of the story, setting, and characters), but these are things that Wikipedia is Not. I think that's your fundamental disagreement may lie with WP:NOT. — Deckiller 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That is quite possible. However, an AfD is not the place to argue such a fundamental policy! Happy-melon 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy requires that these fictional articles actually are notable enough to have their own articles; just put it into a "locations of harry potter", which MAY have enough notability to stay. Besides, the examples you cited are dubious; the locations in lord of the rings are far more notable that Rowlings, since Tolkien probably wrote whole books on his locations and their influences, and then there are many reactions to the books and movies. These locations do not seem to have near that notability. Judgesurreal777 23:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Whenever someone argues other stuff exists I get a sudden urge to nominate for deletion the articles the person is using to make their argument. Many of the articles you listed are indeed not notable outside the work in which they appear, however, the mere existence of articles about places in other works of fiction do not excuse these. All articles on Wikipedia must meet policy, the order it is enforced in does not matter. --Phirazo 03:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Happy-melon. Well said. Flyer22 21:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Happy-melon. How can one argue fictional places are non-notable? We can add the plethora of comic book characters, obscure to the point of idiocy, except "in universe". We could carry the the non-notable argument to the thousands of cricket players included on Wikipedia. How could any sports player, other than Jackie Robinson, have a place in Wikipedia? Either way, clean up or merge as needed. No reason to delete.--Knulclunk 02:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW I came to this page through Diagon Alley, a quite thorough and informative article, if you are looking for information on Diagon Alley.--Knulclunk 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that many thousands of sports players other than Jackie Robinson have been the subject of multiple secondary sources. I'm not 100% sure that your arguement is serious, given that many have multiple books written solely about them and are mentioned in newspapers and magazines on an almost daily basis. Additionally the fact that probably around 90% of articles on fiction probably fail WP:NN doesn't mean that it is right that they exist. If the notability guideline is so wrong on so many artcles it should be rewritten. [[Guest9999 03:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• If a guideline is rewritten to satisfy a recent trend or consensus, then there will still be many articles that need to comply. Of course many articles won't meet the guideline (yet), but it's not a solid reason to change it; otherwise, we'd have no change on Wikipedia. — Deckiller 13:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be quite hard to rewrite the notability criteria to allow pages on subjects which have not been mentioned by any secondary sources. In fact I would say it is impossible as it would allow pretty much anything to have a page in Wikipedia which would go against "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", one of the fundamental principles (five pillars) of Wikipedia. Additionally the notability criteria for Fiction has recently been changed (by consensus) in order to ensure that it goes along with the primary notability criteria (as well as other guidelines) of which it is meant to be a logical conclusion of. [[Guest9999 13:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• I'm confused. I was arguing in favor of the new WP:FICT (I wrote and presented it for discussion). Since it's difficult to rewrite the notability criterion, then wouldn't it be up to the articles to comply? — Deckiller 14:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry I think that I may have got my wires crossed, basicly my opinion isWP:FICT now matches WP:NN (which it should have always doen as it was meant to be derived from it)thousands of articles like these do not meet WP:NN (and so by definiton do not meet WP:FICT). Altering or discarding WP:NN to include such articles would likely be completely unmanagable and to the detrement of Wikipedia (apart from the fact that there is no consensus to do such) hence all of these articles should be deleted as per policy. I think maybe we agree? [[Guest9999 16:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Actually, I think it's my fault; I was responding to the wrong person above. We do agree. I think the only area we disagree is that I prefer testing merging and transwiki before deletion; if this can be transwikied to a Wikia, then all the better. — Deckiller 18:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I won't try to separate these into ones that might belong in a "List of Harry Potter locations" or somesuch. If you want a serious discussion, don't nominate more than 2 or 3 at a time. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep - The articles nominated are of vastly different notability. Azkaban, for example, is an obvious keep. However, I think there should be no prejudice for the nominator renominating these articles individually. Savidan 15:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Question? Why is Azkaban an obvious keep - it has no secondary sources - none have been mentioned in this debate and some of the current article such as the section entitled "Inspiration" is pure speculation and origional research. The rest of it is probably covered within the plot descriptions of the books in which it is involved - if it is truly an important part of the books which seems to be most people's rational for allowing it to go against WP:NN - so the article should be redundant anyway. [[Guest9999 16:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Keep and relist separately. Some of these should probably be merged into a list of Harry Potter places, others should be kept (and notability established using secondary sources like this, this, this, this and so forth). The only way to get a coherent consensus on which ones merit keeping and which ones should be merged is to list them separately. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above Cyclone49 13:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Move to divide the question (sorry, it's the parliamentarian in me - for simplicity's sake, let's call it a weak procedural keep). As much as I would like to see all of these largely unnecessary articles deleted in one fell swoop, these articles should be considered separately and on their own merits, rather than as a large group that does not take into account all of their differences. I would be willing to concede keeping Azkaban or something like that, but I can't really work that into a !vote here, so they really should be individually listed. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 04:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I would, however, like to say that I completely agree with the nominator and would like to commend him for his excellent policy-based arguemnt. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, As i have said before, the "importance" or "notability", of locations such as Hogs head, hogsmeade, grimmauld place, weasleys wizard wheezes, etc... as I listed ...

• Keep only keep Weasleys Wizard Wheezes, Diagon alley, hogs head, hogsmeade, grimmauld place, due to the fact that they have been moderately important if not majorly important. The others havent.Ko2007 18:20, 15 August 2007 (USCMT)

and delete or merge the rest respectively. Ko2007 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Emphatic keep. - Gilgamesh 08:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP. Without a doubt.
• Keep. I think that a lot of the suggestions for mergers are good, as a lot of these don't deserve their own article. However, the original nom to delete all is unreasonable. Somebody Else's Problem^{(aka Alethiophile)Ask me why} 19:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not one policy has been proffered for a keep; all comments can amount to "I like it". The articles are WP:OR and there are no reputable sources provided. The nomination does a good job of identifying the other areas where policy is ignored for the sake of fans liking their cruft. I would suggest getting a personal blog and focus these efforts there; none of these articles are appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The nominator used 257 words to present essentially two arguments: failure of WP:OR and failure of notability under WP:FICT. I can blow away half of that in one 'word': WP:DEL#REASON - presence of original research is not justification to delete. It is justification to edit the articles as severely as may be necessary to remove it. If all that's left at the end is a redirect, so be it!! The nominator's argument under WP:FICT is the only one with credence. I would like to think that my argument displays use of policy as well as common sense, even if the fundamental argument is that I disagree with WP:FICT almost in its entirety. You may disagree again - that is, of course, your prerogative. Happy-melon 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - saying you disagree with WP:FICT is saying that you don't believe that WP:NN should be applied to fiction. Isn't that a bit of a slippery slope - what happens when other people decide it shouldn't apply to biographies or places or bands. Personally I do disagree with you, I think that the information contained in these articles and articles like these does not belong in an encyclopaedia - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia WP:5P - it would be entirely appropriate for a Harry Potter Wiki. Wikipedia is not meant to be a single unified source for all human knowledge WP:NOT#INFO. Also I felt it would make my case stronger if I explained my reasoning rather than juts giving a couple of links to policies. [[Guest9999 22:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]]

• Keep per Happy-melon. Btw, I am tired of "arguments" like "phonebook". --Dezidor 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with a follow-up trim and merge for some per Adam and others. I recommend merging into other articles where notability has been established, so that the information is not lost but is instead placed in a different article. I am not going to elaborate on which I believe should be merged and where and which should be kept; AfD does not govern merges. However, I agree that most of these articles do not merit their own individual article, and, as one of the current goals of the WP:WPHP is trying to cut down on the number of articles we have without necessarily trying to eradicate the information found in those articles, I think a merge is the best option. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep all. Here's my point-by-point rebuttal for the nomination:

• Nominator says: “WP:N – no secondary sources given.” I say: Hello! In case nobody’s noticed, there are thousands of books about Harry Potter. I’m not talking about the hundreds of thousands of blogs, fansites and other non-acceptable sources, I’m referring to published books available in bookstores around the globe. These books analyze every aspect of the Harry Potter story including the significance of locations. It is true that these nominated articles are lacking sources, but sources could be added – deletion is not necessary. Here’s a few of the books that discuss fictional locations in Harry Potter. These are available from Amazon, which has thousands of other books about Harry Potter: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] I could go on and on.
• Nominator says: “WP:NOR and WP:NOT#OR” I say: The subjects of these articles can be easily verified as not being original research, so the nominator’s concern must be with the content. In that case, delete the content that is original research, not the whole article.
• Nominator says: “WP:NOT#INFO” I say: These locations are all essential to the plot of the most successful series of fiction ever. Hardly “indiscriminate information.” Not one of them could be left out – at the very least, merge a few of them together instead of deleting them. Their notability stands on its own and is not inherited as suggested. If it was inherited, we’d only have one Harry-Potter-related article on Wikipedia.
• Nominator says: “WP:FAN” I say: That’s an essay, not Wikipedia policy or even a guideline. Although the presence of these articles is certainly influenced by a few million worldwide Harry Potter fans, the articles need to be cleaned up and properly sourced to avoid this label.

Happy-melon I think put it best. (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, that's a Wikipedia policy.) The rebuttal to Happy-melon's arguments says “Look at WP:FICT”, but that guideline states that deletion should be the last resort, after all other options are unavailable, not the firstline response. Besides, as I've said, the Harry Potter universe (including locations therein) has been the subject of numerous works of secondary information and therefore passes notability requirements, even if the individual articles need improvement and sources. Jaksmata 20:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Jaksmata. How much longer is this debate going to stay open?? It looks like keep to snowball keep to me - only one delete against 17 keeps in the last 4 days, or 28 keeps against 17 deletes, merges, redirects and transwikis (all lumped together) overall. Although, of course, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, we do seem to have built something of a consensus over the last few days!! Happy-melon 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Until someone gets around to putting up templates on thirty-some articles to announce the result... Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Some of these (Azkaban) are certainly more deserving of an article than others (Spinner's End). But none of these deserve to be deleted. If it is decided that they definitely should not have their own articles (and some shouldn't), they should be merged somewhere relevant. It would be a disservice to just outright delete them without salvaging the good bits. Faithlessthewonderboy 11:09, 22 August 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 speedy Delete. Maxim 00:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northgate Mall (Tullahoma)

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

Very small stub on a non-notable mall in Tennessee. The mall only has has thirteen stores in it, so it can't possibly be all that big. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced, apparently non-notable. Jakew 20:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Deleted in January, then recreated as an unsourced stub. I could not find sources to say much of anything about it. Edison 20:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Not verified, and the subject the article covers is not encyclopedia. LOZ: OOT 23:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment After the AFD was started, the article was Speedy deleted[37] by Maxim at 23:43, 15 August 2007. Edison 00:15, 16 August 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. KrakatoaKatie 17:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nottingham Square

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

Non-notable strip mall in Maryland. (Strip malls are generally even less notable than enclosed malls in my opinion.) This is mainly just a directory listing. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Without sources, how could we even verify any claims to be notable? Jakew 20:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The Baltimore Sun described it as a strip mall, and [38] says it has 186,000 sq ft of retail space, if this is "The Shoppes at Nottingham Square." Average little strip mall Nothing to make it notable.(edited to add) Could not find definitive sources showing it was notable, or stating its GLA. There has never been any consensus that Wikipedia should be a directory of neighborhood or local shopping attractions. Edison 21:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers, I found the addresses of the sources I used to create the article (verifying my first hand knowledge) and cited them, however the site doesn't seem to be up right now but it may be temporary. I don't care how un-notable TenPoundHammer thinks strip malls are, notability judgments should be objective, and nowhere in the article does it even say it's a strip mall. It is a "large retail stores and restaurant franchises" with a mall stub because there are no more specific stubs. Edison's figures are taken out of context, "The Shoppes at Nottingham Square" is just the collection of food stores and other services which has only recently been developed, and is only a fraction of Nottingham Square. MDSL2005 21:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • There was certainly no intent to misrepresent it. People creating mall articles frequently use the popular name rather than the official name. If you have a source for the gross leasable area of the mall which is the subject of the article, then please add it, because it is an important factor in the ISCA classification. Edison 19:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I retract my vote from consideration, I cannot find any secondary information pertaining to this property and realize that there is no element of community involvement other than spending money, which is why there is no local news stories about it. MDSL2005 01:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to White Marsh, Maryland, should be enough for just that page.--JForget 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the article is nothing more than a list of stores and there are no obvious sources to establish notability. Nuttah68 10:26, 20 August 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. Kurykh 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newington Mall

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

Non-notable (dead) mall, consists mainly of a list of stores with some OR thrown in. Far too small to be super regional, fails WP:RS too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, there is no information to suggest that this mall is in any way notable. Lacks sourcing, too. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A "deadmall" site claims [39] 480,000 sq ft, so regional. Went belly up in about 20 years, then demolished and redeveloped into a power center. Nothing special about it, non-blog sources seem lacking. Edison 21:20, 15 August 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 Redirected to Computer animation. ELIMINATORJR 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animation software

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

Just a large, poorly written, POV list.

• Delete: Per nom. While I don't oppose to lists in general, this one is just trash. I looked at the history and there is no version of the article that is worthwhile. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Computer animation. The subject of animation done by software is sufficiently covered there. As it stands, the article is absolutely terrible, being a sloppy, ill-compiled arbitrary list of programs. It is not unreasonable for Wikipedia to cover the actual subject of animation software, but as I see it, that is best done withing the main article for computer animation. Calgary 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• There is nothing wrong with having a list of free software under a heading that many 'surfers' might well use. There are many other sections which are far more badly written. As a retired teacher, I would have liked to read a brief critique in support of that POV. People use Wikipedia to find out information and to find links which can help them further their researches. This seems to be a standard approach.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.218.95 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: it is not the standard approach of Wikipedia to provide lists of various sorts with POV reviews. We do have several lists, but this isn't one that we need to improve the quality of the 'pedia. It's long, poorly written and completely POV, something that is discouraged in any encyclopedia, Wikipedia included. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Computer animation. This is nothing more than a POV opinion on software and a list of external links, for which Wikipedia is not the place. Nuttah68 10:33, 20 August 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. Kurykh 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] College Square

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

Non-notable mall, fails WP:RS. Falls way short of super regional at only 459,705 square feet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete There is nothing unique about this mall. It does not distinguish itself from other malls amd appears non-notable.--Stormbay 21:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

KEEP It is notable. It is the only regional shopping mall located outside a major metropolitan area in North eastern TN. From the beginning since its opening, it has had lots of traffic. Even thought it competes with Knoxville Center mall, with the easy access off US25E, people from KY, VA, and TN have fast access to Major mall shops. This is not an advertisement. It is adding an important piece of information on the malls of Tennessee. It represents a piece of culture and a way America shopped. Being built in the 1980's it was at the end of the biggest period of mall building in TN. Having many of the services of Knoxville Center just being local for a 15 county area, it is important. Thats why its notable.Etittle1978 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Don't just tell me that it's notable -- show me its notability (specifically in the means of reliable sources). Being the only mall serving its area isn't (usually) enough. Alpena Mall got deleted recently because, even though it's the only mall in northeastern Michigan, it totally failed WP:RS and got deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Every mall is the most notable in its region, if you pick small enough regions. Something more is needed than just that. DGG (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply does not assert any notability. Vegaswikian 02:40, 19 August 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 - non admin closure, tagged with {{db-afd}} Giggy ^Talk 07:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oak Hollow Mall

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

Non-notable shopping mall, fails WP:RS. 937,048 square feet is pretty big for a mall, but I don't believe that size alone makes for notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Apart from its current shortage of tenants, this mall appears non-notable. --Stormbay 21:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaning Toward Delete - Typically, as a rule of thumb, I've been trying to only keep the malls that are over a million square feet. This mall is under that, but just barely. Nevertheless, this mall doesn't seem to have anything special and is thus quite boring and needs no article... that is unless I'm wrong and this mall is special in some way. --Triadian 21:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. As a super regional mall it gets a break. Could use work fo WP:V and WP:RS. Vegaswikian 02:42, 19 August 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. Kurykh 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Memorial Mall

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

Short, sub-stub-class article on a non-notable mall. Tagged for importance since April with no improvement. At only 367,147 square feet of GLA, it's definitely not a super regional mall either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article has had a chance to expand and seems stalled. It is non-notable. --Stormbay 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as empty. Vegaswikian 02:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is my local mall, and I was thinking of taking it to AfD sometime soon. It's only 50% occupied and in serious decline beyond the big stores in it. Frankly at this point, the new Wal-Mart supercenter down the road is more notable than this mall, unfortunately. Nate 05:08, 19 August 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. Kurykh 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Angel Pearl

The Angel Pearl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very little context, Seems not to be very notable and could possibly even be merged to other related articles, Google search renders no viable sources. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources are found to attribute notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete though there is an Auguste Caillot who wrote a book about Polynesian legends. I haven't been able to track down a copy to see if this subject is substantially mentioned.--Sethacus 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. It's plausible: Caillot and Rollin check out as writers in this area [40]. I tried Googling in French - perle, croix - but no luck: without a specific citation, it goes. Gordonofcartoon 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• This article is confirmed as accurate by my information. Leungsikwah -unsigned edit by new editor Leungsikwah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• I find this article to be accurate and informative. Hendrylee - unsigned edit by new editor Hendrylee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 1928 issue of People and Pearls confirms accuracy of article. Sarahtrental - unsigned edit by new editor Sarahtrental (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Remarkable how a 1928 article could predict it to be currently owned by a private collector on Grand Cayman Island. Gordonofcartoon 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right. We have 1.original research 2.WP:ILIKEIT and 3. a supposed article in an 80-year-old magazine with no references that, per Google, doesn't even seem to exist. Excuse me if I'm not convinced.--Sethacus 15:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources offered in article. Gsearch does not turn up this legend, but it does turn up a lot of references to a similarly named company. Gsearch en français only gives a half dozen links to the company, and no other hits.
• Delete unless some sources establishing notability are added. Nuttah68 10:51, 20 August 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. Kurykh 00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Ashcroft

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

No notability, no sources available, except the company web site, which isn't a third-party source. Besides, I'm not even sure as to what his company does, or why it and he are notable. Delete this article. Panoptical 17:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. The only source I found was this which isn't much (and a press release summary to boot). Red Fox itself (a software and services company that is sorta known) could be notable, but it's not even clear from sources what Ashcroft's role is. Owner? Founder? Employee No. 1? --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There has been no activity since I tagged the article with {{notability}}. Also, appears to be an autobiography, and not a very thorough one.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 03:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete asa failing WP:BIO. Nuttah68 10:53, 20 August 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. Singularity 05:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Hogan (accused murderer)

John Hogan (accused murderer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnotable and serious BLP concerns (this is a tragic case of a man considered unfit to stand trial for killing his son), the name is POV and the article contains almost nothing (had a notability tag since January), SqueakBox 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No real notability, especially if he hasn't even been charged with anything. Crazysuit 17:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete BLP problems right down to the title: it seems to me that for BLP purposes, "accused" should mean formally charged and put on trial. Otherwise we leave the door open to all sorts of wacky "accused..." articles. Besides, doesn't seem to have been a particularly notable case by encyclopedic standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (although he has been formally charged, he is under psychiatric observation and awaiting trial) this is not a significant case per WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, POV title etc. Violation of WP:BLP.--PrestonH 19:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above - WP:BLP issues galore. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per most above.--JForget 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment While I don't see the article as worth keeping, I'd like to point out that the case itself is notable, having been featured on several newspaper's front pages on multiple occasions, and therefore meeting the requirements of WP:N. I don't think, however, there should be an article about this person. JulesH 10:50, 16 August 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 - fails WP:BIO, no sources. - KrakatoaKatie 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tito power 106

Tito power 106 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Biography of a minor radio Disc Jockey in California that does not appear to meet the criteria set out in WP:BIO. Given the absence of his real name, looking for sources online is next to impossible. CIreland 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the subject of the article is non-notable. The article itself is unsourced. I presume the author of the page (djfromwhittier) is likely the article subject. Sasha Callahan 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete This man does not want his name to be known for the same reason "Big Boy" doesn't. Everything in this article is true. Sources include the power 106 website and of course, the radio. I've been listening to Tito for 10 years. He is well-known in the L.A. area and has an interesting story, one that I believe is very notable. This link leads you to his profile on the power 106 website http://www.power106.com/airstaff/tito.aspx This is a video of Tito's Top 4@4 which happens to be the top rated show on air in Los Angeles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upp6Vqykkmg

This comment was left by Djfromwhittier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) See [41] and this one too [42] Sasha Callahan 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per very narrow scope of notability, ie only known (if that) in LA area Corpx 04:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Italic textWhat the hell is this guy talking about...What an idiot. It's the same reason a local newsreporter in arkansas is on this site... they're well known in their region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.121.152 (talk • contribs)

• That should be deleted too then. Corpx 04:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Look, if you're not from L.A then who are you to say whether this guy's a somebody or a nobody. You don't know who you're even talking about. Believe it or not, his story is pretty popular in this neighborhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.121.152 (talk • contribs)

• That's my point...nobody outside of LA knows about this guy Corpx 04:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Unless or until a source asserting notability is found. SolidPlaid 17:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to Tito (radio host), then merge and redirect to KPWR. You'd think being the afternoon drive DJ on a top-10 radio station in the second largest radio market would be enough to establish notability, but reliable sources are difficult to find; the only mentions I was able to find online were from when he was part of the former afternoon drive show "tha' Goodfellas and Tito Show", e.g. "2 St. Louis men are a hit with their Los Angeles radio show" in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and "Radio Show of the Week" in the Los Angeles Daily News. The Goodfellas themselves moved to KDAY, and Tito was left with the timeslot on Power 106 (KPWR). Given the relatively high profile of this DJ, it seems prudent to believe that it is only a matter of time before more independent reliable sources will be found. Until then, merging rather than deleting seems the better course of action. Advice to User:Djfromwhittier: if you are aware of any independent press coverage (e.g. newspapers or magazines) of Tito or the radio show after the Goodfellas left the timeslot, it would be a good idea to cite it. DHowell 02:04, 19 August 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. Singularity 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MP3Artists

MP3Artists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm not quite sure what to make of this article. A google search reveals pretty much only that this was a group over several forums, and that it wasn't a particularly notable one. The claims of starting out as a record label cannot be easily verified, and in any case, given the parsity of references, it was probably a non-notable label. The Evil Spartan 15:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no reliable sources, and with 26 Google hits (and a number of them unrelated), I wouldn't hold my breath for any reliable sources coming anytime soon. Article is not even primarily about its title. Fails both WP:MUSIC and WP:WEB in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is either a gentle hoax or non notable since there are no reliable sources Obina 17:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable at all. Man It's So Loud In Here 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per User:Starblind ----Hu12 03:55, 16 August 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. Singularity 05:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fresh Force

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

This appears to be a minor band, signed to an independent label, with few releases. Asserts notability, but fails WP:MUSIC, and also WP:V, as it lacks sources entirely. Xoloz 16:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - the page this appears to have been copied from, here, states "almost made it famous." I'd say I have to agree; there's nothing to back up any of the claims made, so we're lacking in verifiability; two singles on a small indie doesn't seem to help them make WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom and per above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds like a footnote to me. Likely their best shot at passing notability would be if they'd received decent press coverage but since there isn't even a single reference, I guess that's a no. Precious Roy 14:50, 18 August 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. Singularity 05:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TR Griffin

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

Assertions of notability, but this article has no external sources: fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:LIVING. As for notability, this person is a singer in the Sacramento area and has won his singing awards in a prior a-capella group in that city; there's no notability asserted outside of that town. Seems to have been contributed to mostly by WP:SPAs and IP accounts. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no sources showing how the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete article does make a claim to notability, albeit one so silly it's barely worth considering: claims to be "one of the first to pioneer" hard disk recording. Uh-huh. Anyway, delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, 15 August 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. KrakatoaKatie 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DemandTec

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

Contested G11 speedy deletion. I've fleshed out the most ad-like content but the question still remains about the notability of the company per WP:CORP. Procedural nomination, I abstain. Pascal.Tesson 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Quite a few multinationals use their products, AP article about company picked up by Forbes. Needs some fleshing out regarding the exact nature of their products, and some more sourcing wouldn't hurt either. Cap'n Walker 20:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. An actively traded company on a major US stock exchange demonstrates clear notability. Alone, the major media articles on DemandTec generated from the NASDAQ listing should be sufficient and, of course, there is no problem finding reliable sources on the subject. Michael Devore 20:26, 18 August 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. Kurykh 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queen of the World

Queen of the World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Minor beauty pageant. Google searches turn up some mentions of it, but it is not really covered in any reliable sources. I had no luck with "Königin der Welt" either. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Only on Wikipedia... there's one person who has devoted their time to adding articles to Wikipedia about the world's beauty pageants, and another who is working just as feverishly to remove such articles from Wikipedia. Good luck to both of you. Mandsford 21:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  No, she wasn't involved in writing most of the articles I nominated. Plus, I'm done. It was ust one day that I decided to clean out Category:Beauty pageants. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 23:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. For Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Moonriddengirl 14:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no 3rd party WP:RSes for the notability of this minor beauty pageant. Fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 19:04, 20 August 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. Singularity 05:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trigger (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND: no reliable sources that establish notability, released two albums, both "unsigned". Prod was removed without a comment. Melsaran 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I notified the author of possible deletion [43] after he had added a non-working link to a disambiguation page, but before he created this article. I already checked whether this band had a wiki entry in the Greek WP, but this didn't seem to be the case (having a different alphabet makes researching such things really hard though.) Since the author ignored well-meant advice, I have to assume no reliable references establishing notability exist, therefore my delete vote. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the band is unsigned. clearly fails notability standards. Sasha Callahan 17:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the article is unsourced and includes spam link.--NAHID 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Signed or not, there are no claims of notability in the article. Precious Roy 16:16, 18 August 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. Kurykh 00:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lacey Duvalle

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

Biography of a pornographic actress that I believe fails to satisfy the guidelines in WP:PORNBIO. Appearances on a couple of TV shows are her best claim to notablility. Furthermore, the two sources provided are not independent of the subject. CIreland 17:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless material to pass WP:PORNBIO is found Corpx 04:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think her appearances on The Tera Patrick Show and The Howard Stern Show fulfil WP:PORNBIO's mainstream coverage criteria due to the high number of pornstars appearancing on those shows. Epbr123 09:50, 17 August 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 into Amalgam#Mining. - KrakatoaKatie 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amalgam table

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

I cannot find a single source for the existence of an "amalgam table" on Google. (The results are "...amalgam (Table 1)." and similar.) If references cannot be found, the article cannot stay. Shalom ^Hello 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Seems to be real mining technology. I haven't checked the 'recommended reading' in the article, but Google Books returns some other results that appear to verify that references can be found. Examples: [44] [45] [46] [47] The claim that it was the "main way to collect fine particles of gold during the 1800's" suggests notability, but would require verification. Jakew 20:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Source&merge per Gordonofcartoon. Jakew 21:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Source and merge with Amalgam#Mining. This is a just a description of one particular setup - the amalgamation table - for the "amalgamation" process for gold recovery. See [48], [49], [50] Gordonofcartoon 23:35, 15 August 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. Carlossuarez46 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Q-ships

Fictional Q-ships (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Uncited trivia collection that is riddled with OR examples of similarity. Violates WP:NOT#IINFO (and WP:NOT#TRIVIA?) Eyrian 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - directory of loosely associated items stitched together through original research. Good catch. Otto4711 17:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

==Case for keeping==

First of all, this is my first proper attempt at making a case for keeping an article so even if I make a bad job for the defense this should be taken as a failure on my part and not be taken as reflecting on the merits of this article.

Second this article is new, as of this moment less than a day old, although it consists almost in its entirety of material contributed by other editors and now deleted from the original Q-ship article, I don't believe any of these contributers know of its existence. So for now it is friendless and beset upon by an editor who cannot abide its existence. Said editor having deleted this material from the original Q-ships article. It is apparent therefore that the two editors who have so far shown an interest in this article, myself and its nominator for deletion stand opposite each other, one in enmity for this article and I presume others articles like it, and myself as its unwitting champion in amity. Under such circumstance both I and User:Eyrian cannot be said to be neutral in this argument and at most our voices will counteract the others. I therefore ask that neither I nor Eyrian should act until a consensus of other editors without a vested interest in the survival or deletion of this article have had a chance to consider its survival; and that any possible execution should be stayed until such a time as the article has had a time to mature.

Because yes I concede that this article as it stands is flawed. However how many articles arrive fully fledged and flawless. Those flaws in format, in detail and in writing can be fixed with time. But will it be given this time?

I come now to the crux of the matter, does such an article have a place on Wikipedia? It was deleted by Eyrian as trivia and I suppose others who denigrate popular culture as trivia would agree with this. Indeed I would agree with Eyrian that this material has at best a tenuous right to existence in the Q-ship article proper, but I contest that it does have a place in a Fictional Q-ships article. If this article is deleted than it can only be on the grounds that all popular culture references should be deleted, and only reality and real things should be the subject of articles in Wikipedia. If only Q-ships as they existed in reality has a place in Wikipedia, than I suggest that articles such as HMS Thunder Child be deleted, as the logical extension of the no trivia school would mean that only steam rams as they existed in reality have a place in Wikipedia and this famous but fictional example is irrelevant, and while you're at it how about Space battleships and battlecruisers, the fiction section of HMS Surprise (1794), every ship that appears in Star Trek and List of Star Wars capital ships and every fictional person, object, ship and organisation in Wikipedia. (Okay I better stop there, I guess there are some editors out there who would want to do just that).

Even if it is conceded that fictional subjects have a place on Wikipedia, which I hope the majority of editors will do so, does that mean that this particular fictional subject has a right to survive? Q-ships as they existed in reality were remarkably unsuccessful for the amount of effort expended on them, and like the ironclad steam ram, they have been much more successful in fiction than they were in reality. That they have captured the imagination of writers and readers, means that for many what they know and understand of Q-ships will have stemmed from an exposure to Fictional Q-ships rather than to the reality. It can be hoped that an article on Fictional Q-ships (and it has been linked to do so) can serve as a bridge to those interested in fictional Q-ships to Q-ships in reality.

I've spent longer in this defense than seems to be the norm here, and I'll stand aside now to allow other voices their chance.KTo288 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)KTo288 20:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but your arguments here do not address the substantive policy issues raised by the nomination. The existence of other articles has no bearing on this article. If there are examples of actual fictional Q-ships that have been identified as such by reliable sources then that might demonstrate a basis for this article. But the things on this list have apparently not been identified in reliable sources or within the fiction from which they have been drawn as Q-ships. Gul Ducat never referred to his purloined vessel as a "Q-ship" for example. Thus, the list is nothing but the assumption by some editor or another, in the absence of sourcing, that a particualar fictional ship is, or worse, simply resembles, a Q-ship. This is original research and it has no place on Wikipedia. Otto4711 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article does little more than point out where they occur in fiction, and let's face it, fictional Q-ships are not all that different from real ones. Down this road, we'd end up with Fictional battleships, Fictional torpedo boats, Fictional left-handed redheads... (P.S. That's Dukat, not Ducat.) Clarityfiend 00:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'd say this is over-categorization of fiction and is a list of loosely associated topics Corpx 04:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• With regards to content, as I have said I concede that this article as it is is flawed, and I'm not going to defend this article on the basis of what it is, but on the principle of what it may become, inline with Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Editing and Wikipedia:Fancruft#Approach.

On the discussion page of the article (my apologies, but this is the first time I've participated in a Afd debate in such a way, and find myself in the deep end with regards the etiquette of this procedure) I received the replies that "...yes, there are interesting aspects of the cultural impact, they are not illuminated by a list of trivial references" and "...it's not a matter of growth;it's a matter of replacement" from the editor who originally nominated this article for deletion. From this I surmise that he or she would be interested in seeing a well written and sourced "Fictional Q-ships" but not the article as it stands. In this I guess we have a difference in approach.

Is it reasonable to expect articles to emerge from the foam full grown and perfect? I suggest that the opposite is true, I've participated on more than one article in which a scrawny summary and mass of conflicting views have grown into an article one can be proud of. Something happens along the way, an article attracts a critical mass of interested and knowledgeable editors and the article blooms. In this even badly written and incorrect content has its uses, as it will provoke said editors into action. However what is required is the seed crystal around which this progress can be made. Well I guess that one line about Fictional Q-ships on the Q-ship article proper may act as a grain of sand, but without time, space and the tolerance of editors intent on preserving Wikipedia's purity no critical mass or take off is possible.

There will of course be editors for whom such a take off is anathema. For such editors the sooner this article be nipped in the bud the better; and to these editors my answer is...okay you've got me, there is no possible argument that I can make that will convince you otherwise. We're not supposed to mention that articles and categories such as List of fictional medicines and drugs,List of fictional ships,Spacecraft in the Honorverse,and the Category Fictional towns and cities in the United States] that exist, are tolerated and nurtured.

So get out your knives and be done with it, delete the article. Because there is only way that the consensus this Afd is going and that is "delete". This article just hasn't had the time for any but those who wish its termination to take an interest in it, no chance to gain supporters to rally; these debates seemingly to be the prowling grounds of those whose only instinct is to delete.KTo288 19:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve--like all WP articles. The use of these cultural references indicates the relevance of the real-world equivalent. KTp288's detailed arguments are clearer than anything I could do in this rather unfamiliar territory, so I just refer to them. As he says, it's a difference in approach--I feel that anything that can potentially be written about encyclopedically is encyclopedic,. and that's how I understand the pillars of N and V. Any other interpretation leads to a specialized encyclopedia, and at the base of all the pillars is the purpose of WP: to produce a contemporary general encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• You really ought to know better than this by now. If a fictional ship is not identified as a Q-ship in reliable sources then including it on a list of fictional Q-ships is original research. These are not examples of fictional Q-ships. All of your high-falutin' talk about what an encyclopedia might be means nothing in the face of the concrete policy objections. Address those. Otto4711 01:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Any entries you think wrong, you are welcome to discuss on the article talk page. I don't consider "inclusive" a particularly high-falutin' term or concept. If anyone is interested in building an encyclopedia containing only what a few people want it to contain, GFDL will let you do it as a subset of WP. Really-important-pedia. DGG (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Uh huh, and so leaving aside all of this "what an encyclopedia should be" chit-chat, do you have any sources at all that indicate that even a single item included in this article is a "Q-ship"? Whatever meta-discussions you may want to have, as far as this article goes do you have any fact-based answer at all to the policy problems? Otto4711 04:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Directory of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR unless reliable sources can be found describing these fictional spaceships (or ships like them) as "Q-ships". If any of the sources use the "Q-ship" terminology, that would help considerably. If some encyclopedia of science fiction compares them to Q-ships, that would be a conclusive argument for keeping. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. The majority of the entries are not described Q-Ships i the original media, let alone by reliable sources. Nuttah68 11:04, 20 August 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. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tina Bergmann

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

Biographical article with little assertion of notability; the only thing that I see is that she supposedly performed at various places nationwide. No proof that she fulfills WP:B WP:BIO Nyttend 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment She's a bot??!!?? Maybe you think she doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Yeah. That makes more sense. -- Ben 18:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks :-) Nyttend 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • Good times. -- Ben 19:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nominating for Speedy. No claim of notability. -- Ben 19:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, probably would not pass WP:MUSIC as a locally active folk musician with some national name recognition. We'd need more than a Pete Seeger quote, though (that may be enough to belay speedy). --Dhartung | Talk 19:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of any sources to establish notability. Nuttah68 11:15, 20 August 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. John254 00:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Zaharias

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

This article does not establish notability. He seems to be nothing more than the husband of a professional golfer, which does not make him notable. Nikki311 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. Nikki311 16:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not inherited by marriage, but I am satisfied by the citation to a New York Times obituary. Shalom ^Hello 16:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, did you read the obituary? All it says is that the husband of a professional golfer died. There is almost no information about him other than his death and marriage. Nikki311 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, it also mentions that he was a professional wrestler, and the Google news results below suggest that he was a rather famous one. Zagalejo 18:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep 402 Google News hits from 1931-1934 – before he met Babe Didrikson. Zagalejo 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although he is now BEST known as a husband/manager, he was well known before his marriage. Needs more about his pro career, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I AfD'd the article because it, in its current condition, does not establish notability. If someone is willing to expand the article and add sources, I have no problem changing my vote to keep. Nikki311 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have added material about his 1932 match against Jim Londos, the best attendance of any that year, which seems to demonstrate that he was one of the top wrestlers of his era. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 15 August 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, defaulting to keep. A number of good arguments were raised on both sides, but I don't see how this discussion can be closed as anything other than "no consensus". As an editor, I would urge moving the article to Race relations in the LGBT community and would strongly urge more of a focus on what reliable secondary sources (e.g. sociologists) have to say about race relations in this community, rather than a focus on individual incidents of racism which, sadly, are common across all strata of society. But that's beside the point; for the purposes of AfD, this is a no consensus, defaulting to keep. MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism in the LGBT community

Racism in the LGBT community (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Let me first explain that I think it is very unfair in that it singles out a community, allow me to ask, is there an "Anti-Semitism in the Black community" article? Or more on topic, "homophobia in the Black community"? No. Should there be? No. Because homophobia, like racism, appears in all groups, no matter how much you can document and find incidents to talk about, this is the truth. --Revolución hablar ver 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Nominator is obviously a troll. Did not place the AFD notice on the article page - attempting to get this article deleted by stealth. Delete this AFD and ban nominator permanently. 91.108.205.229 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Excuse me, but I had forgotten how to put the AFD notice. So please stop assuming. --Revolución hablar ver 06:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You'd "forgotten" how the put the AFD notice on the article, but conveniently "remembered" how to list it here? Riiiiight, of course, how silly of me not to think of that. 91.108.229.63 10:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Civility and No personal attacks applies in AfD debates, too, please. --Ace of Swords 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep too many sources for it to be deleted. I hate to be speculative, but I think the nominator is a member of this community, and wants to keep potential criticism down. Sasha Callahan 17:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I am a member of this community, if it matters. The article is terrible. It is not a discussion of racism in the LGBT community. It is a catalog of a few incidents of racial bias or perceived racial bias within the American LGBT community. However, the topic of the prejudice of one minority group toward another minority group is clearly encyclopedic. I look forward to someone's taking this article in hand and improving it. Otto4711 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as topic is unencyclopedic, while Otto's comments on state of article makes me more firm in my decisionSqueakBox 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: While there are sources, this phenomenon does not seem particularly notable. So there's racism in the LGBT community... there's racism in all communities. But what makes this special? I don't see any reason to have this article. .V. _[Talk|Email] 18:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Here is quite a bit of information that counters that idea.Racism Issues in Predominantly White Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Communities; North America - Europe - Australia (with quite a few sources and articles.)[51]

• Delete. Two seemingly unrelated topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs)
• Delete. The article does not assert the significance of its subject, simply saying that it exists and that it is not a surprise that it exists! It is not clear to me that racism in the LGBT community is so significantly different from racism in society as a whole that it warrants a article, consequently I go for delete. --Malcolmxl5 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. There seems to be enough sources to establish the notability of this topic, but the referencing needs a lot of work - it seems to be largely attributed to blogs and the like. Come to think of it the article in general needs work - a lot of work - but I disagree with the idea that it ought to be deleted. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just because something is sourced doesn't mean that it's something that should be kept. This is one of those instances - why is racism in the LGBT community so special that it needs to be set apart? To call this notable, in my eyes, is some sort of assumption that the LGBT community is perceived to be without bias towards other groups. Why else would racism in that particular group need special attention? fuzzy510 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is not a question of whether this particular sort of racism is "special." It is a question of whether the topic meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Clearly it does. Otto4711 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per Otto4711. Racism is everywhere so it should be ignored... that's a argument for willful ignorance. Ideally, the page should be transformed into something more like Race in the LGBT community, where it talks about the role race plays in the community and not solely just on racism, the way Ethnic issues in Japan does. In my college days, I've read papers by African American LGBTs who complain how race ignorant the community was in general, and such screeds should make plenty of good material for such an article. Also, see Shirley Q. Liquor—there's plenty of material there to get started with. hateless 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's important to remember here that LGBT is not an arbitrary method of classification. LGBT isn't a just a category that a person can fall into, but, as the article states, it is an actual community. If racism is indeed a prominent and notable issue within the community, then there is no good reason that we shouldn't include it, as it would relate directly to the subject of the LGBT community. Calgary 22:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as significant subject although, article would use some expansion with additionnal sources to make the topic more solid.--JForget 00:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem to have any particular merit. Is there really a case for saying that racism in that community is different from racism outside it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, there is. Just to be clear, we're talking about racism within the community, not racism from the community. While racism may be very similar wherever it appears, the idea is that racism is of enough significance within the community to merit it's own article. In summary, the article is primarily an article about the LGBT community that specifically discusses racism, not an article about racism that specifically discusses the LGBT community. Calgary 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge too much WP:SYNTH to keep a topic like this. Corpx 04:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm failing to see any WP:OR in the topic that suggests that subject isn't valid. Indeed many of the comments are clear that racism does exist within the LGBT community so where is the WP:SYNTH? Benjiboi 11:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• For this history in the US section, the article examines a "gay bar named Badlands" and allegations of racism there. Then it moves on to some alleged verbal assaults that occurred in the Castro. Then it moves on to Chuck Knipp. The article is tying all these incidents under the big umbrella of racism in the GLBT community - which, to me, is WP:OR Corpx 08:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Granted the article could do a much better job at presenting the material. That gay bar Badlands was brought up before the SF Human Rights Commission for dozens of complaints of racial profiling and discrimination, because of the race-based incidents a group And Castro For All was created and still exists to address racism issues in the LGBT communities. It should be noted that the Castro is probably the best known (and I believe still largest) gay neighborhood in the world.
• Chuck Knipp's character Shirley Q Liquor is a prime example of racism insensitivity and made headlines for blackface stereotyped stand-up comedy - the character was disinvited to perform in several venues after protests. Both these incidents were covered in the GLBT national press so no WP:OR needed there. I can see how it could be interpreted that way. Benjiboi 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's well-sourced, and valid. I see no reason to delete it, and frankly, deleting the article won't make the issue go away. spazure (contribs) 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as asserting notability, being notable, and being sourced, but also having a really bad/WP:SYNTH intro. Antelan ^talk 04:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is certainly a fascinating phenomenon - seems to be well sourced, but could use some fleshing out - I'm a lesbian and it baffles me how a few people who will almost inevitably at some point be a victim of discrimination can then go about perpetuating discrimination themselves... Xmoogle 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This topic is important and I agree with User:Calgary above, racism or discrimination within a community differs from external racism or discrimination. I think the article could be improved, but let's put it out there and folks can edit and alter it.Kootenayvolcano 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important subject in the LGBT community garnering headlines in many of the publications. The article is off to a good start and can easily expand in many directions including LGBT groups like Black and White Men Together and Castro For All that have formed to combat racism within the LGBT community. Benjiboi 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Rationale seems to boil down to 'other stuff does not exist, which is not a reason for deletion. Yes, racism is present in every community, but it also manifests differently in every community. There have been various publications on this matter. Sourceable, notable. No reason not to keep. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per CaveatLector.Biophys 02:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Corpx. The WP:SYNTH issues seem the most pressing. Bulldog123 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Otto4711. Wow. Bearian 18:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If this article were to stay, then an article disscusing racism in every community would have to have its own article (from latinos, blacks, whites, and asians, to nudists, goths, and punks..). Wouldn't that be alot of fun writing many articles about racism in many communites.. The history section is like a textbook example of racism, or in other words, what people already know about racism. The first sentance implies that somehow, someone would not know that racism in the LGBT community exists...and the "Racial bias in the gay media" section....I can think of many communites that have the same issues...systemic bias annoys me badly. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 07:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If enough sources were to support those articles then they certainly could be written. There are numerous sources writting about racism within the LGBT communities as well as books and taught as a part of LGBT and black studies in colleges. Double-minority status is not exclusive to these communities but this article is. You are free to start an article on other subjects as you wish and they will be held to the same standards. Benjiboi 07:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for WP:SYN issues. The concepts "racism" and "LGBT community" are quite vague; trying to create a coherent article dealing with both at the same time is bound to be an exercise in POV-pushing. However, I wouldn't object to merging any useful content into an existing article on one or both of those topics. Biruitorul 18:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Really? Racism and the LGBT community concepts are vague? Really? See Flat Earth. Benjiboi 19:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relevance the "flat earth" link has, but yes, those terms are rather subjective ("racist" being used by the new McCarthyists of the Left to silence large swathes of dissenting opinion they may not like; "LGBT" an obfuscatory umbrella term that seeks to couch its members' behaviour behind the banality of an acronym) and in any case, the only ones likely to be writing about either topic, let alone both in tandem, are radical leftist grievance-industry types, whose screeds need not befoul an encyclopedia that strives for objectivity. As an aside, this article seems highly likely to remain focused on attacks by white American (male) homosexuals against their black and Hispanic counterparts. As it will be some time before (if ever) before it starts to address racism by Afrikaaner bisexuals against Zulu bisexuals in South Africa, or by Fijian transsexuals against Indo-Fijian transsexuals, perhaps it could be given a more specific title. Indeed, the title is vague in another respect: does the article seek to address racism within the "community" (seemingly yes), or in the "community" but directed at society as a whole (this is how the title reads)? The questions proliferate, and with these, the keep rationale diminishes ever further. Biruitorul 21:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this topic having a broad scope - the beauty of Wikipedia is that perceived or actual biases will be continually challenged as articles develop. So, I say, lets trust the collaborative process that is Wikipedia. If contributors want to address the Afrikanner/Zulu question you mentioned, they will. Kootenayvolcano 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but on the other hand, that raises a further question: is there a single worldwide "LGBT community"? Maybe in a loose sense, but the term "racism" can have very different meanings in different cultures, and of course homosexuality itself is perceived quite differently around the world. So while a broad focus could cover everyone, let's keep WP:SYN in mind and try to avoid mixing apples and oranges when discussing the issue in (eg) advanced industrial ethnically heterogeneous societies (say the US) vs. developing, more homogeneous ones (like Somalia). Broad-focus articles are good because combining lots of little articles makes for more comprehensive coverage; at the same time, lots of little articles may be necessary if the topics in question are different enough. Biruitorul 22:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly the research and published writing on the subject that are up to WP standards have mainly been in the more developed regions of the world and the article (as, I think with almost all WP articles) will reflect that. As the article develops it would be interesting to note geopolitical differences and the responses and affects of same. Jamaica with its recent Murder Music attention to its LGBT community is an example that people who are LGBT in developing countries might have fighting racism as an interest but staying alive is a priority. Benjiboi 00:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to Administrator: The poster objects to both the terms "LGBT" and "Racism". Perhaps we should delete those as well? How's this for Wikipedia "consensus"? --George100 09:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on above note What is that even supposed to mean? Biruitorul's personal and political opinions are not the topic of discussion here. He raises valid points in his comments, whether or not you agree with everything he says; and in any event, opinions and comments in an AfD cannot be dismissed simply because you don't like the commenter's political opinions. K. Lásztocska 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. What a weird topic. I'm always, as a general rule, against these types of splinter-articles. (I've never been a big fan of Balkanization in either the literal or figurative sense.) Perhaps some of the material would be worth merging into Racism; but this article is way too narrowly-defined for my liking. K. Lásztocska 23:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Racism article is quite large and although a summary section might be appropriate I think it would quickly be nominated for it's own article anyway. There is more than enough material to turn this into a good article, "weird" or otherwise.

• Keep — topic is obviously encyclopedic, and article already has sources establishing notability. Future expansion could include discussion of African-American lesbians and the womanist movement; I know that at some points there has been friction between the African-American lesbian community and the white-dominated lesbian mainstream. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or move. This is a horribly written article with many problems. Mainly, per title, it lacks neutrality. Second, it isn't well sourced. Third, it is U.S. centric. I think the best solution is to merge it into something like LGBT culture in the United States or Racism in the United States.--Sefringle^Talk 06:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No one seems to dispute the article needs improving. NPOV, Globalism and Sourcing are all easily fixed through regular editing. Possible renaming may be appropriate once AfD has been resolved. Benjiboi 13:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Is well documented issue with social significance. Furthermore, I believe that the deletion of this article will be tantamount to censorship. It is an attempt to cover up and condone a very real phenomenon. --George100 01:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Ace of Swords 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic topic, though article needs improvement. Needs improvement does not justify deletion. It does justify people working on it to improve it though. --Ace of Swords 19:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly encyclopedic. The LGBT community is not monolithic, even in one city (such as NYC), the LGBT community is not a category, and members are already oppressed by homophobia in many parts of the world, and in many states in America. To add racism is a double whammy for LGBT people who are also members of other minorities. Gay Asians and gay Jews haven't been touched on, for example, nor have most other racial, religious, or cultural groups. I believe notability has been established, as the issue is well documented. The article needs to be improved: expanded, made global, and re-written for readability. However those are not reasons for deletion. Other reasons to keep have been touched on. — Becksguy 04:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom vague and not written in neutral point of view . Harlowraman 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The topic is encyclopedic, it deserves a page. It has plenty of references. NPOV can later be corrected. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 22:04, 22 August 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. Singularity 05:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft of Ace Combat

Aircraft of Ace Combat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This seems to violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 15:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - needs a tidyup however, to be like the many similar articles on wikipedia such as List of cars in the Ridge Racer series or List of Cars in Project Gotham Racing 3. --Oscarthecat 16:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, and those "list of cars in X" articles need to be deleted too. Andre (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as well as similar articles. Also if possible transwiki to StrategyWiki, etc.--_ZXCVBNM 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Follows the precedent of the "cars in gran turismo4" articles like 8 months ago. DurinsBane87 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY as in not a directory of all the aircraft that appeared in a game Corpx 03:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to List of aircraft in Ace Combat series. Agree to User:Oscarthecat. -Yyy 10:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines state clearly that Wikipedia isn't a list or directory of indiscriminate information, especially about games (which are just about as notable as single movies). Keeping this article would be like keeping one that was titled "List of minor characters in Top Gun."--_ZXCVBNM 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd example to give, particularly as the Top Gun article includes a section listing the aircraft in said film. So should this information be merged into the Ace Combat article? --Oscarthecat 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep' in order to clean up the main article. The need for these will depend upon the people working on the relevant game. Not directory is irrelevant, as a description of whats in a game is not indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above; those other articles are unnecessary as well. — Deckiller 02:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is like those silly "List of weapons in Foo" articles. Indiscriminate. Axem Titanium 05:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I have also nominated Aircraft of Ace Combat 3 which is directly related to this page. Miremare 16:55, 19 August 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 not kept. Singularity 06:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uplayme

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

Queried speedy delete for notability. Anthony Appleyard 15:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per notability guidelines. Brusegadi 16:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, no evidence of notability, qualifies per CSD bio standards as a group with no assertion of notability. --ForbiddenWord 16:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, per WP:CSD#A7, WP:WEB, and WP:N. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:21, 15 August 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.