Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 16

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

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Achoti

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

Upon search on Google, I could not find any sources to back the article up. The article itself does not list any sources other than the organizational web site. Only other possible source will not open, possibly because the page doesn't exist anymore. Suggest deletion. Panoptical 22:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, clearly non-notable. Perhaps an A7 speedy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, possibly speedy per WP:CSD#A7. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above and nom.Harlowraman 03:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, clearly fails WP:WEB. Per that guideline, it's either delete or merge, and I don't think there's anything here to merge. bfigura ^(talk) 05:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:43, 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The result was Keep : concerns about sourcing have been eliminated, nomination withdrawn. --Haemo 01:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSA Trust

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

This trust does not meet notability standards. Third party references are lacking. Relevant Google hits are few. Verification is spotty at best. Seems to be an obscure organization in a specialized branch of chemistry. Realkyhick 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uupate: Reliable sources have now been provided, and notability does appear to be established within the subject's field — a narrow field, admittedly, but still notable. Nomination is withdrawn, closure requested. Realkyhick 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment My initial impulse, to see if this could be merged with a Chemical Structure Association article, led to finding that the parent merged with the trust a few years ago so they are one and the same. The group seems to be a UK-based, but internationally-active, analogue of an interest group within the American Chemical Society, so it isn't an equal of the ACS in significance nor is it a peer national group. I'm inclined to think that its grant-making and conference-organizing activities have some significance but it's difficult to determine how much without third-party sources. --Dhartung | Talk 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And that's the problem. This may indeed be a notable organization, albeit within a narrow niche, but there simply aren't any reliable sources cited for verification. Realkyhick 03:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The equivalent of the American Chemical Society is the Royal Society of Chemistry. This group is more specialized. Did the nom think to notify the Chemistry Workgroup? Why should the rest of us go guessing when there are people here who might actually know if its notable, & if so where sources might be?DGG (talk)
  • How do we go about notifying them? Could you handle that? Realkyhick 22:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:RS. ¿SFGiДnts!

WP:RS says "Reliable sources are authors or publications ...". Author of this article is Prof. David Wild - a professor of chemical informatics writing about a chemical informatics organization. I would say that his fulfills WP's "reliable sources" definition. --Steinbeck 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, it is a specialist branch of chemistry. Why is that an argument to delete? It is an up and coming area of chemistry. The Sheffield Conferences are important conferences. Within that new area of chemistry, this is not obscure. This article gives valuable knowledge about an organisation that is playing an important role in this relatively new area of chemical knowledge. It needs more references. It needs improving. It would not however improve Wikipedia in any way to delete this. --Bduke 10:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's hard to argue that a chemical society featured in Chemistry International, that receives financial support from the likes of Pfizer, Unilever and Zeneca and organises two significant series of conferences is non-notable. The article as it currently stands contains references to completely reliable sources that show this (e.g. ref. 5). What could be gained by removal? Andreww 14:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete seems non-notable by our normal criteria. It gives a bit of money away and has some corporate sponsors, but then so does my village festival! Chemistry International is not a widely read (or quoted) publication. I don't wish to disparage the work of this organization, nor prevent an article being written if its activities expand (as its trustees surely hope they do) but neither would I want to keep an article simply because it is in a field in which I'm interested. A second time round, my vote may well be different but, for the moment, no. Physchim62 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry International may not be widely read, but as the news magazine of IUPAC, its contents have real notability. I am surprised you do not think its activities are not already large enough. --Bduke 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm commenting in my role as chairman of the Chemistry-Information-Computers (CIC) division of the German Chemical Society (GDCh) (You asked for authorities, that why I mention this). The CSA Trust has played an important role in the last 20 years to shape the novel field of Chemoinformatics by organizing chemoinformatics conferences, helping students to travel and by providing training in the field. It it recognized as an important, small but fine organization by us (the German Chemical Society) as well as the RSC and ACS (see above). A number of the about 30 trustees are world-renowned scientists in pharmaceutical chemo- and bioinformatics. The work of the Trust has to help science, not to promote itself. That may be a reason for your problems of finding references. There are numerous accounts of CSA Trust's work through its name being part of joint symposia. What I don't understand is the following: Assume that the CSA Trust is less important than, say, Pyschim62's village festival, so what? If only two people in the world want to learn about either the village festival or the CSA Trust through looking at their Wikipedia article, the existence of these articles is justified. The Trust's work, however, has been witnessed and recognized by more than 20.000 people over the 20 years of it's existence. Let me know if I can help providing more evidence of importance. Would links from ACS and GDCH divisional pages to the CSA Trust pages help? Steinbeck 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Links for ACS and other Socities would certainly help if they establish notability. --Bduke 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: No, only two people looking for an article about a subject does not justify the article's existence. If that were the case, we would have articles about pretty much every living person, every organization, every structure, and so on. Our standard response for "so-and-so's article exists, why shouldn't mine?" is expressed on this page: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Having said all of that, the trust may well meet our notability standards, but we have to have some citations from reliable souces so that we can verify this. It's much like what you would have to have in an established journal. These standards are designed to give Wikipedia as a whole a measure of credibility, which is a tough-enough task given its open nature. Realkyhick 21:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There are more than 2 chemists in the world, so I dont know where you got that figure from. Chemical structure nomenclature is a basic part of chemistry, & I think there's enough material here to show that they're important in the field. DGG (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The CSA trust is also discussed in (a) Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling 1998, 16 (1): 48-54. (b) Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 1994, 34 (1): 1-2. (c) Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 1989, 5 (2): 101-102. (d) Chemistry in Britain 1984, 20 (5): 404-404. These journals are published by Elsevier, the American Chemical Society, Elsevier, and the Royal Society of Chemistry, respectively. The last of these (now renamed ChemistryWorld) has a monthly circulation of over forty thousand, and so may be considered widely read. Jmg11 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you could add these refs to the main article, especially those with a link available online, I think that might be enough in the way of reliable sources, and I'll likely withdraw this nomination. Thanks! Realkyhick 18:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've added the four additional references in the appropriate location. Andreww 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Good job! I have withdrawn the nomination, as there are now sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Realkyhick 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep From WP:N Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". This group has external references, and in my opinion this topic both asserts notability and is notable. Antelan ^talk 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep : This article is within the guidelines of WP:N and WP:ORG. JoJan 05:28, 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 No consensus after rewrite corrects some substantial problems. Xoloz 14:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Society for Bipolar Disorders

International Society for Bipolar Disorders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No matter how nice the organization's mission is, we still need independent references to assert it's notability on Wikipedia. Currently, this article does not satisfy WP:NOTE Chupper 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and also WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and above.Harlowraman 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep that they run international conferences and publish a major journal is sufficient, and both are easily verifiable. The article is however dreadful PR spam, and should be cut down to size. DGG (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the comments sir. Do you have any references from independent sources stating that this is a major journal? If so, it would be appreciated! Thanks, Chupper 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 8/17/07 Additional sources have been added, including a link to the IRS website where official 501(c)3 status can be proven. We hope to have quite a few sources, including information from medical organizations and journals, listed by next week. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isbd (talk • contribs) 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment While your contributions are appreciated, there may be a conflict of interest here. Wikipedia strongly discourages these types of edits. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Chupper 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per DGG. I am going to be bold and hack it up. Bearian 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, can somebody else take a crack at fixing this mess so it meets the Heymann standard? Bearian 22:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rewrite Notable superspam. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - It may not yet be a good article, but it appears to publish a serious academic journal, for Blackwell would not publish a trivial journal. The articel may indeed be a stub (as it is tagged), but should certainly be retained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 August 2007.
  • Comment - We still need references stating that this is "not a trivial journal", or in other words, passes notability guidelines. Chupper 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment That information is in the article itself. It is included in Web of Science (and Journal citation Reports) and all the medical indexes. In JCR is has a 2006 impact factor of 3.5, 26th out of 95 in all of psychiatry--and that's out of the 95 selected top[ journals in psychiatric included in JCR. (the article has 11th in a narrower category). I think that answers your question 05:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - Right, I've found some of the information in the article itself, but its not referenced. That's why I'm wondering - can you reference where you found this information and include it in the article? Right now the only reference this article has is a link to an IRS website stating its a charitable organization. That, alone, is not enough to show Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Notability... Sorry to be annoying on this topic. It's just that you seem to know where this information is coming from, and if we could include these references in the article, most of these issues would be resolved. Thank you sir. Chupper 13:04, 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 where's the snow? Singularity 07:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theistic evolution and the Roman Catholic Church

Theistic evolution and the Roman Catholic Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Yet another POV fork from the author that brought you Creation and the Roman Catholic Church. Like that article the material in this is already covered in Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. ornis (t) 23:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It seems that contested edits in one article only spawn other articles. This one contributes nothing. Kablammo 23:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Per nom. This appears to be one in a line of POV forks. Not necessary, because information is presented elsewhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete If we allow these kinds of forks, Wikipedia will be unusable and unreadable and a mess.--Filll 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Smite with the jawbone of an ass. Barring that, delete. Yet another POV fork from this author. Persistent fellow, isn't he? Realkyhick 23:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete POV fork of existing article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. Harlowraman 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This POV-forking-spree is becoming the theater of the absurd. •Jim62sch• 09:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The author would do better to work on reaching consensus on the main article rather than throwing up pov forks in violation of WP:POINT. ... dave souza, talk 10:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't need a article to itself Ealdgyth | Talk 16:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Down with POV forks! ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:33, 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 07:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Madaris

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

Contested prod. Non-notable singer. His hit song "Hopelessly Lost and Found" can only be found on myspace and the other songs cited have no ghits. Searching for "Bob Madaris" finds only myspace and a family genealogy site. The only source of information about him seems to be family reminiscences. andy 23:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No independent sources, unable to verify. Realkyhick 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clearly fails WP:MusicHarlowraman 03:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:33, 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 07:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meteorite Artifacts

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

Gamecruft. Article concerns a plot device in a Tomb Raider game. It holds no relevance to science, society, culture, or gaming aside from the hyperlimited context of a gameguide. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 03:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of real world coverage Corpx 04:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• About this article's proposed deletion - there is no reason to delete this article as it as just a history lesson on the fictional artifacts as is the article on the atlantean scion if there really is a problem with the article please reccomend any changes that can be made.The article has been edited ---Joxernolan

• Above comment was reformatted to remove it from the table of contents for the day's AFD listings. Otto4711 21:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Cruft. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Lara Cruft? (ho ho I'm funny) FiggyBee 06:35, 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 Keep — article may be confused about what the scope of this topic is, but that's an editorial question which can be solved through editing. --Haemo 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public safety

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

No evidence that this term exists as a meaningful, encyclopedia-worthy subject. The article is pretty stubby and listy, but the topic is so vague that it is doubtful that improvements would make it any more helpful. Some government agencies use the word combination "Public Safety," but in those cases, an article on said agency would be more appropriate and that usage doesn't suggest that it means anything more than "safety of the public," i.e., the dictionary definitions of the words. Whatever useful info that could go into this article could fit better into numerous other existing articles. bobanny 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Legitimate field. Contributors have ample opportunity to expand the current coverage (Find sources: public safety — news, books, scholar) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Preposterous. There are entire schools devoted to the public safety field. Obviously we might call this a modern hybrid but there is much more to this than police and fire. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a legitimate field, and accurately describes my local police (Actually, public safety) department, the Kalamazoo Dept. of Public Safety. [1] Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Vague topic. Squidfryerchef 03:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • History is a pretty vague topic as well, should we delete that article also? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • • I'd change my position in a flash if someone produced a definition of public safety that is 1/2 as clearly delimited, precise, and attributable as the first sentence in the history article. bobanny 06:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Look what we've got here. A dictionary definition, and a list. And the list contains "Search and Rescue" and "Food Safety" but somehow left off "Police". Squidfryerchef 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It needs work, I agree, but seeing as we are talking about a wiki article, the main criterion for keeping anything is potential. Sorry for the snarky reply, "vague topic" was a little too concise to seem like a proper reason. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just to clarify, I'm not trying to deny that "public safety" exists, just that it's an umbrella term for anything relating to the safety of the public, such as Homeland security, intelligence, EMS, Disaster management, Emergency service, Police, Fire fighting, law enforcement, Food safety, etc., all of which have their own articles. Some combination of these things (but not all) is what's taught at public safety schools and are what state agencies named "public safety" are responsible for. Kalamazoo's Department of Public Safety is nothing more than police and fire services combined, according to their website. Unto itself, there's not much to say about it except that it's a grouping of some combination of these other things. bobanny 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep That list complained of shows in fact the notability of the subject and the wording--just ook at the titles of all the various organisations. One of the negative comments offers the criticism that the list is insufficiently comprehensive, a minor matter for editing. DGG (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • No, the "complaint" is that the constituents of "public safety" do not clarify what public safety refers to. Is Kalamazoo's Dept of Public Safety misnamed because it only includes police and fire and not the others? On what basis is the C'tee of Public Safety of the French Revolution excluded from the scope of the article? Just because it's old? It's pretty arbitrary and attempts to define it in a "modern" sense contradicts Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. bobanny 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually I looked at those titles and, being from the U.S., was wondering what the U.S. Department of Public Safety was. When I clicked on the article it just explained what a state or municipal public safety department meant. I don't think this is a good basis for an article because it's ( I think ) a relatively recently defined umbrella term for different types of agencies with their own long and distinguished histories, such as police and firefighting. Also very difficult to define what is a public safety agency. Is it only first responders? Do we include things like the department of public health? What about security or private special police at railroads, hospitals, utilities? I think "Public Safety" is just fine for naming categories. i.e. "Public Safety Agencies in Virginia" but there's no basis for an article. Squidfryerchef 10:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG et al. Obviously notable and encycopledic. Needing a fix is not a reason to delete. Bearian 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the article may need to be improved, but the topic is legitimate and notable. --musicpvm 04:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the number of items listed under "see also" would mean that a disambiguation page would be needed if this one were removed. Certainly the French Committee for public safety is notable. If the article includes NN junkm then delete that, not the article. Peterkingiron 15:39, 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. While it doesn't seem like outright deletion is called for, consensus seems to support trimming this down to something like Public safety, or even merging/redirecting there. If someone wants to go for it, this discussion should show there's not strong support for keeping the page as is. W.marsh 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public Security

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

No evidence that this term exists as a meaningful, encyclopedia-worthy subject. The article is pretty stubby and listy, but the topic is so vague that it is doubtful that improvements would make it any more helpful. Some government agencies use the word combination "Public Security," but in those cases, an article on said agency would be more appropriate and that usage doesn't suggest that it means anything more than "security of the public," i.e., the dictionary definitions of the words. The weblink (the only outside source) provided doesn't even use the term. Whatever useful info that could go into this article could fit better into numerous other existing articles. bobanny 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, over a billion ghits implies that this is a legitimate topic, just like public safety.Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, vague topic. Squidfryerchef 02:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per WP:SYNTH - Too vague a topic to cover all the items in the list Corpx 04:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment not NOR/SYNTH because no new facts were deduced, but it's not a good basis for an article because it's ( I think ) a relatively recent umbrella term for some very different agencies with their own long and distinguished histories, such as police and firefighting. I think it would make a fine category, i.e. "Public security agencies in Australia" but not an article. Squidfryerchef 10:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Nenyedi. Notable, encyclopedic. See my comments at Public safety. Bearian 18:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite Terrible, but notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - unlike public safety (above), I am far from convinced that this article has any significant content. Peterkingiron 15:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into National security and/or Homeland security, or perhaps even Civil defense?. Article is basically a list of governmental jurisdictions related to safety security, which is or should be covered adequately elsewhere. As it stands, it is misleading, vague, and hopelessly uninformative. Pure deletion is probably improper since one can imagine a person searching for information on public safety security, it is just that they need to be directed to a good article that is informative and useful. This one is not adequate, other similar ones may be. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Public Safety. The two terms deal with the same concept. Once the text (a personal essay) and the lists (selective and not helpful) are removed we should be left with an empty page. If, at a future date, anyone can come up with a sourced distinction between Public Safety and Public Security then the redirect can be undone. TerriersFan 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've never heard the term "public security" before. Possibly that term is a synonym for "public safety" in countries other than my own. Squidfryerchef 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The security article tries to distinguish that term from safety; if this gets redirected that might be the way to go. It also seems to serve as a sort of dab page as well with its 'see also' list. Some countries do use "Public Security" instead of Public Safety (China, Poland, Berundi, Quebec, etc.) There might be ambiguity in translations in some cases. bobanny 03:20, 23 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; improved. I agree I was a bit in a hurry with nomination `'Míkka 16:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Stanley

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

A music mixer engineer. Dubious notability. What next: wikipedia articles about groupies? `'Míkka 22:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:MUSIC Criteria for musicians and ensembles 6.: Was a member of Tom Tom Club,[2] and Criteria for composers and lyricists 1.: for a co-writing credit for the 1995 #1 hit "Fantasy" by Mariah Carey.[3] dissolve^talk 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • He is not musician, composer or lyricist. He is technician. With this level of participation we must have articles for each foreman who built Empire State Building. `'Míkka 01:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well that's one opinion, surely you have reliable sources to back it up? dissolve^talk 01:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I base my opinion on the article. It is not my blooming business to do anything else during AfD. It is your job to fix the article using WP:RS if you want to keep it. It is a ridiculous demand to supply WP:RS that a person is a nobody. `'Míkka 01:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's true the article should do a better job of asserting notability. But a reasonable and responsible nominator won't just decide that every sloppy article deserves a trip to the chopping block. If that were the case, there would be no purpose for {{importance}} or {{unreferenced}} (for two examples). --Dhartung | Talk 02:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per dissolve. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a search of Google Books indicates Stanley was somewhat influential within reggae. --Dhartung | Talk 02:58, 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 07:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magistrati

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

Charles the Great, aka Charlemagne, as a king had many dealings with magistrates, but there is no web-available public record of him founding a special Magistrati group or of a secret judicial "Ordo Magistratorum". Ordo Magistratorum has no notable search hits except for the address of the article's single link, leading to a protected Yahoo group (empty of messages, as I was sufficiently curious to sign up). Frankly the article reads as a broken English translation of a private RPG or conspiracy theory. Regardless of its truth, the article fails the core verifiability test of a reliable source. Michael Devore 22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• delete unless verifiable from reliable sources. `'Míkka 22:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS.Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I also failed to find any sources for this, and the text reads a little madeup. If such an organisation did exist it was clearly not sufficiently notable to have wide currency in what was a comparatively well-documented period in history. In which case a mention of it could possibly be included in the Charlemagne article but it does not justify a standalone page. Euryalus 02:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:V. Ordo magistrorum actually delivers some Google Books results, but only as a phrase within various contexts. Smells like a strange spam trap. --Dhartung | Talk 03:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 03:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete about as confused an historical article as i have ever seen here. No point in going through all the errors. DGG (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete strongly suspect a hoax, no such order appears in my sources. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax? ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No substantive Ghits, most top ones being blogs. Unless its creator can provide verification and somethign to fill in 1000+ ye4ars between Charlemagne and Napoleon during the AFD period, it should be deleted. If retained it should be renamed "Ordo magistrorum". Peterkingiron 16:11, 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. — TKD::Talk 11:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air South Charter

Air South Charter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. All results I can find are trivial/directory listings. The destinations list could be hundreds of pages long as a charter they can fly anywhere, almost bordering on general aviation charter, most often being non-notable entities Russavia 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and per WP:CORP. --Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 05:03, 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 07:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Www.kucinich.us

Www.kucinich.us (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Was speedy deleted, has been recreated. An earlier version at Kucinich.us (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was also deleted, and has spent time as a redirect to Dennis Kucinich. Given that the US elections will soon be upon us, I am bringing this here to discuss the question: are official campaign sites inherently notable per WP:WEB. My reading is not really, but I could be wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect It seems odd that the campaign site would have it's own entry. See Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008 or Hillary_Rodham_Clinton as an example. Her site only appears as a reference. --bfigura ^(talk) 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Change of opinion, see below bfigura ^(talk) 05:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect `'Míkka 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete and protect. I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Notability (web) that even causes me to look at this as a gray area. Unless the site itself "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (and not in articles primarily about Kucinich or any other broader topic), it lacks notability and should be deleted. If there's ambiguity about it in WP:WEB, maybe you could bring the specific passage to the attention of those reading this discussion, Angusmclellan? Evil1987 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the candidate. The article's subject itself is not notable or encyclopedic. The website and its history have no inherent interest. --Moonriddengirl 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (changed opinion; see below)
• Delete and oppose redirect this page was already speedily deleted and was then recreated with www added to the front.--Southern Texas 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This page was already speedy deleted once before as kucinich.us; this meets both General Criteria 4 and Article Criteria 7 for speedy deletion. Furthermore, this article is nowhere close to meeting the notability standards for websites. I do not think that redirecting this page is appropriate: we certainly wouldn't want a bunch of redirects for the websites of the 18 major presidential candidates, it has little to no usefulness as a redirect (who searches for a candidate's website as an article topic) and it undermines our notability guidelines to permit the entry's inclusion. JasonCNJ 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding: to the general question, "Are candidate websites inherently notable?" I submit the answer is no unless the site itself has been subject to external validation and news reports as containing notability itself. Failure of a site to do so means the site itself is an extension of the candidate's campaign - while the campaign might be notable, its component parts are not. JasonCNJ 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is a widespread misconception that prior WP:CSD deletions qualify an entry for G4 recreation deletion. G4 is only for articles deleted via a consensus discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 03:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected and have caused the inapplicable grounds to be stricken. JasonCNJ 03:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There is nothing particularly notable about the website itself, it hasn't been covered independently of the campaign. JCO312 00:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Good point from JasonCNJ. Changed my opinion. --Moonriddengirl 00:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect. If someone is typing in "www.kucinich.us" in that entry box on the left of the screen, they are either mistaking the Wikipedia search bar for the browser address bar or mistaking Wikipedia for google. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - but at least this is more votes than he'll get as a candidate. Nick mallory 00:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ouch ˉˉ^anetode╦╩
• Delete per WP:WEB. Candidate's websites surely do not meet the criteria for inclusion. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no need for redirect for this as a search term. The website is only a partial aspect of the candidate's campaign. --Dhartung | Talk 03:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Prevent recreation as per nom and Nenyedi Harlowraman 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. This is an WP:EL masquerading as an article. As was mentioned above, Wikipedia is not Google. Resolute 05:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Jason and Anetode. Changed my opinion bfigura ^(talk) 05:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per JasonCNJ and Anetode. --Metropolitan90 06:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per norm. It lacks the nobility as stated on WP:WEB. It has also fall under speedy deletion previously.Cocoma 13:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Keep. This page should by no means be deleted. If this one survives, I might do other candidates sites." (This comment was left by Www.kucinich.us page creator Zelogan on the discussion page of this AfD, so I have reprinted it into the appropriate section.)
• Redirect to Kucinich. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 05:03, 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. — TKD::Talk 11:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Chesler

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

The assertion of notability in this article is that she was a voice actor in 6 out of 52 episodes of W.I.T.C.H. (TV series). She doesn't have any other notable roles to her name. I would have speedied this article to be honest, but in fact it came up on DRV and the decision was to overturn deletion. So I will reluctantly vote strong delete instead.-- ugen64 09:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete She is a cast member on the show, but I don't believe that warrants an article itself, unless it can be expanded somehow. I doubt the "6 of 52". IMDb is notorious for its shoddy documeting of cast lists.--Sethacus 16:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete unless more info is known about her and/or important, delete. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be nn. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Non-notable person who has had a job. Resoundingly fails WP:BIO. Valrith 21:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I don't see any sufficiently notable roles either. Although there are other listings in IMDB other than WITCH, including one movie as an actual actress in a minor role, it's just on the fail side of borderline to me. — Becksguy 19:10, 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 speedy keep—fairly obvious reasons, including many independent reliable news sources. — Deckiller 22:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kobe Bryant sexual assault case

Kobe Bryant sexual assault case (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is about the Kobe Bryant's sexual assault case in 2003. David Pro 22:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, nom hasn't really given a reason for deletion. Was a notable case, has decent sources, too long to merge back into Kobe Bryant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep, the nominator seems confused.-67.85.180.72 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and get the WP:SNOW shovel. Clearly passes any possible test of notability. Otto4711 22:46, 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 not deleted. Singularity 07:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny And Mary

Johnny And Mary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. According to the article, it placed on the charts. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above, notable charting single. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Nationally charted song.[4] dissolve^talk 00:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Internationally, actually - I'm almost certain it charted here in NZ, too. Produced by Gary Numan, IIRC. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above, it has been charted quite high nationally.--JForget 02:13, 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. — TKD::Talk 11:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dave's Farm

Dave's Farm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Strongest claim of notability is a YouTube link to a news channel's human interest story. YouTube stats are not in the ballpark of other YouTube celebrities'. Ichormosquito 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB, and also WP:SPAM. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of coverage from non-youtube sources Corpx 04:05, 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 07:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All My Children title sequences

All My Children title sequences (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another World opening sequence, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing credits of Another World, Guiding Light opening sequence, and others. The notability of All My Children does not mean that every aspect of it is notable. Otto4711 22:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The show is notable, but the notability does not transfer to every single detail and aspect of the show. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research about a trivial element of the show. —tregoweth (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources to establish the notability of the title sequence. The article is also heavily a non-free content gallery. Jay32183 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability for this sequence Corpx 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable sources specifically discussing the title sequence can be found. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:02, 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. Moreschi ^Talk 09:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of magical items in Jackie Chan Adventures

List of magical items in Jackie Chan Adventures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-encyclopedic topic, unnecessary list. Not notable, not sourced. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per many aspects of WP:NOT. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Magical merge back into Jackie Chan Adventures If it's that central to the theme of the show, it belongs there. Is the article too big as it is? Not a major problem. Mandsford 23:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability for magical items in Jackie Chan Corpx 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I like the show but this is unnecessary and not encyclopedic. Axem Titanium 01:27, 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 Merge into Jenna Bush. --Haemo 02:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Hager

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

• He is not in line of succession of royalty. The mentions in various sources are only trivial mentions due to his relationships with notable people (his father and Jenna Bush). He hasn't done anything of note. Dismas|^(talk) 22:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Jenna Bush. I completely agree, the coverage by the media is only trivial. For now, it's better to do the merge. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Jenna Bush per BlueAg09 comments above.--Getaway 22:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N, notability isn't transferable. --Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• An AfD this early on is stupid -- Y not? 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per multiple non-trivial published sources about this person. -- Y not? 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Jenna Bush. There currently doesn't seem to be anything that couldn't be better handled in that article by a "Henry Hager, who is [blah blah]" clause. No objection to recreating in the future if more to say appears, though. --Delirium 01:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the others here. Merge into Jenna Bush. --googol 01:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Himself is not very notable at all.--JForget 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Jenna Bush (Hager). No independent notability, despite his White House post, which was fairly minor. --Dhartung | Talk 03:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete He's not notable unless he actually marries the Bush daughter.. let's wait and see if that really happens before we call him "notable". Tom M. 04:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's been the primary subject of multiple, reliable, independent sources stretching back to 2005. Notability is overwhelmingly established. He's passed Wikipedia's notability guideline for over two years; this isn't a recent development even if some people are just hearing of him for the first time today. People might not like it, but the fact of the matter is that getting engaged to the daughter of the most powerful person in the world is something that the media has decided for us is highly notable. --JayHenry 05:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's sufficiently notable. Fjl 09:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like he may be making news in the future. Do we really want to merge and then unmerge later? michaelbraun 8:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)— Michaelbraun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Well i think its notable as its been in the news and he will become the son of Bush, but unless a lot can be written about him merge him with jenna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.233.180 (talk • contribs)
• Keep I think as the media swarms around this topic a seperate page for Mr. hager will be justified. 70.21.84.235 — 70.21.84.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Has not accomplished any notable feats whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.11 (talk • contribs)
• Merge to Jenna Bush. He's only notable because of his fiancee, and she's barely notable herself. Ariadne55 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Only notable for his connection to Jenna Bush. DCEdwards1966 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge him into Jenna Bush. Getting engaged to the daughter of a notable person does not make one notable. Fails WP:BIO. Edison 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Jenna Bush--SkyWalker 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Nearly all of his information is presented in Jenna_Bush#Engagement. His article contains the same information, so it would just be a redundancy. I don't think he'll be making news in the near future; he's still an MBA student looking to complete his studies next spring (according to a Washington Post article) If he's going to run for or get elected to a political office or do something similarly noteworthy, it's quite unlikely that will happen until he's done with school. For now, there really isn't anything important about him besides his connection to Jenna Bush that would need a separate article. The media's spotlight is really titled more toward Jenna than to Hager. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of people will want to know who he is and will want more information about him, the fact that most the information on his article can be found on Jenna's article is because no one has taken the time to do a proper bio about him. His fame will only increase from now on.--Joebengo 21:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Should we delete all articles of people in the spotlight because of who they date or marry? Such as Kate Middleton, and Chelsy Davy.--Joebengo 22:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per jayhenry Thesmothete 14:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Joebengo says "no one has taken the time to do a proper bio about him" ... that's because there is nothing notable about him to write about. He is a college kid engaged to a well known (not notable) girl. There are lots and lots of engaged college kids .. and they, like Hager, are not notable. Tom M. 15:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep , for the reasons given by previous keepers.--Bedford 04:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• I looked at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Criteria for notability of people, and the only debatable criterion is the first one listed. Has Henry Hager been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of him? No, Mr. Hager hasn't really been the subject of either of the sources cited in the article, and they certainly don't go into great detail. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, are there multiple independent sources to establish notability? Our article cites two sources, but I'm not convinced that they provide nontrivial coverage to establish notability. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merger with another article, so let it be merged into Jenna Bush. WODUP 01:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Jenna Bush. It's all been said, so I'll simply say 'merge.' JamesLucas 02:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per comment above... Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 09:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or delete Not notable on his own per WP:BIO and WP:NN. --Strothra 17:37, 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. — TKD::Talk 11:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Kauzlarich

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

This article contains an extreme amount of bias in its entirety. It appears this article has been written by a subordinate or an associate thereof who shows an extreme distaste for Kauzlarich. Although the links are properly noted, there is a minimal factual base to the remainder of this article. Due to the hostile and defamatory nature of the content, any editing to cause this article to meet the Neutral POV guideline for Wikipedia will essentially start this page from scratch. This article should be deleted. Ngajoe 21:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Attack page. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and make NPOV. He was involved as stated in the incident and did make tactless remarks on ESPN. I've removed the slurs and added a reference for Waxman. Clarityfiend 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep due to involvement in the Tillman incident. Needs better sources, but other than the slurs that Clarityfiend removed, I don't know where you're getting "minimal factual base". --Dhartung | Talk 03:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - as per above. Bias is not a reason for deletion. Make it neutral, but he does have involvement in the Tillman case. I'm also wary of the motivations for nominating for deletion, as the nominator seems to have an SPA. [5]--Nobunaga24 05:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and alter the article if you need to in order to make it NPOV. People are looking for information when a military man in a position of power makes statements like these. Flying Jazz 14:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I'd suggest expansion, more details about Kauzlarch's career, bio, etc. --Trippz 08:20, 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 delete. — TKD::Talk 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vikki Blows

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

I searched on Google and I haven't been able to find anything that would suggest that this model is remotely notable. She has been tagged as having questionable notability since April 2007. Nothing seems to have changed. Max Talk (+) 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep found 3 sites including IMDB and added it. .she is a upcoming actress.But the article needs improvement. Harlowraman 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Her IMDb page claims her only role was as some background character in an minor mini series, When Evil Calls, which doesn't come close to meeting the notability criteria for entertainers. Other sites were random fan sites and her personal homepage. I stand by my original opinion.--Max Talk (+) 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete until she is notable. Just having an IMDB page does not help at all.Man It's So Loud In Here 22:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per the guy above :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and also WP:N, and WP:RS --Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment I have known IMDB pages that have been put up by the person themselves or their mate. It's not often allowed as a reputable source here.Merkinsmum 23:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - until she is notable. The article does not contain any information that would not be equally available if/when Ms Blows achieves greater fame. In the mean time, Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball nor a directory. Euryalus 02:36, 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. — TKD::Talk 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawndale High

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

This article is about the fictitious high school of a cartoon character. It's not notable; it's fan-cruft. It's unreferenced. It's trivia. Mikeblas 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Unencyclopaedic. Jakew 21:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Jakew Harlowraman 21:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The show might be notable, but a separate article for a school in the show? Notability is not transferable.--Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Undecided. Please note that Wikipedia does have articles about other fictional schools from animated television series, such as South Park Elementary and Springfield Elementary School, and those articles have few citations or none at all. Ultimately these articles may be sourced and then kept, or deleted, but they should be subject to similar criteria. --Metropolitan90 06:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The presence of other articles which do (or don't) seem similar is irrelevant. It would be awesome if we could edit the whole encyclopedia at once, but until that's possible, we'll have to work by iteratively editing, deleting, or adding individual articles. -- Mikeblas 13:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The articles linked to here may have content which may help establish notability. Or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:52, 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, default to Keep. Walton^One 15:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Egged bus lines

List of Egged bus lines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a directory of bus services in Israel. It is not encyclopedic, The flatly contradicts WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Samfreed 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, or severe cull of lists. Oli Filth 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article is an encyclopedic and informative list, and as was stated several times on its talk page, isn't meant to be a travel guide for Egged, which is what the Egged official website is for. No good reason to delete; the article does not violate any of the policies claimed by the nominator. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Jon513 22:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Ynhockey or Merge to the main article.--JForget 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#TRAVEL and WP:NOT#DIR. This is not something that should be in an encyclopedia. i ^said 03:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG delete per WP:NOT#TRAVEL - WP is not a bus schedule/guide. No point in documenting every bus in the world for the route it runs Corpx 04:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep This is a perfectly valid fork of the parent Egged article. As usual, WP:NOT is being abused and utterly misinterpreted to mean WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A usual, those claiming that this article fails WP:NOT have not provided any indication of how this article fails their preferred section. The blatantly false claim that this is a "bus schedule" is belied by the fact that not a single time is listed here. Precedent shows that there are hundreds to thousands of similar articles for cities, states and countries throughout the world, and this one clearly satisfies the precedent. Alansohn 04:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• No time is listed, but we do really want a list of ALL the buses that a company operates? All the buses that greyhound operates? All the buses run by state owned companies in countries like India? WP is not a directory of buses. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation operates almost 5000 buses, per the article and that's just the state provider in one state in India. Corpx 04:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

• Is the material non-encyclopedic or is it not broken up as finely as you'd prefer? New York City bus routes are listed in the exact same format by borough (See List of bus routes in Manhattan). In New Jersey and Long Island, they're grouped by ranges of route numbers. I would suggest that routes for Kerala could be grouped into a number of articles, by area within the state, route numbers, distance or other characteristics, and the groupings listed within this article could be broken into subarticles if that were more palatable. I don't buy the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, nor does the slippery slope of "what would we do for India" convince me otherwise. This is a well-structured, well-grouped and defined article that has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:NOT. Alansohn 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn, Your argument runs basically like this: Because WP:NOT Has been violated so often, then the Wikipedia is now Anything and Everything, and therefore why not. Well, I have it in mind to go around and nominate each and every "list of bus routes" in the WikiPeida for deletion, or, alternatively, they can change the policy from "not a travel guide" to "yes a travel guide", and then I will shut up. Also, List of bus routes in Manhattan just lists who are the bus companies, and tells a bit about them, not a blow-by-blow directory. Bottom line, this page is a violation of policy.

And to those who say they don't see how this violates policy - please refer me to a list of bus routes in any encyclopedia in the world, that isn't "The encyclopedia of Rome" or some suchlike. Samfreed 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Show me the Wigglytuff article in any encyclopedia in the world; I'll wait. A very long time. I do NOT advocate that "WP:NOT Has been violated so often, then the Wikipedia is now Anything and Everything, and therefore why not." I advocate that you have misinterpreted WP:NOT and that WP:NOT has NOT been violated. You have NOT pointed to any policy that this article violates, other than a hazy claim that this is a directory or travel guide. Each part of this policy provides specific details of what is covered and this article satisfies none of them. Precedent is clear that articles of this type violate no Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 06:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with you there. This falls under "WP is not a directory" - "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.", as well as WP:NOT#TRAVEL. I strongly do not think that an encyclopedia should be providing routes for any means of mass transportation. I'm really not looking forward to seeing bus routes of every metro bus/train/taxi service in the United States, or any other country. Corpx 06:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NOT#DIR lays out specific definitions of what "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." means: 1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). 2) Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. 3) Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. and 4) Sales catalogs. The problem is that it doesn't meet any of these four extremely specific definitions provided. WP:NOT#TRAVEL states that "Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées." and again this is not even close to what is presented here: I see no prices or addresses. I understand the WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach, but there is no Wikipedia policy violation here. Alansohn 06:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn, If you don't see how this violates policy then we probably aren't speaking the same language. Strange. Samfreed 06:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Addressing Wikipedia policy, not claiming a language barrier, would be a far more productive means of showing how this article violates Wikipedia policy. See above and pick which part of WP:NOT#DIR or WP:NOT#TRAVEL applies here. Alansohn 06:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Now I understand. You believe that the examples are the definition of the policy, while I believe that the terms of the policy itself are categories. To me, a "List (of Egged) bus (lines)" is a directory or travel services, and hence doubly wrong. Is seems that under your interpretation if we defined "Citizenship" and gave examples from 5 different countries as to how this concept works, then when we meet a citizen of the 6th country he is not a citizen at all, because he does not fall under the examples in the definition. Maybe the source of the difference is that we come from different disciplines - Are you a lawyer? In law it sometimes works that way. This is Policy, not Law. Samfreed 06:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• The policy provides definitions of the terms, using rather specific examples, none of which meet your interpretation. There's nothing here in this article that lists any information useful for travel purposes. The word "directory" that you refer to is defined as "a repository or database of information". There's no Wikipedia policy violation here, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Precedent is clear that similar articles for train, plane and even bus routes are appropriate subjects for articles, even if they don't appear in most paper encyclopedias. Any luck yet with finding Wigglytuff? Alansohn 06:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• You're certainly entitled to your interpretation, but I disagree with it. If not for travel purposes, is it not "a resource for conducting business" ? An article does not have to provide detailed contact information to be considered a violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Hong Kong. Where exactly is this precedent set at, which allows for bus/train/plane schedules to be posted? From what I can remember, these are deleted, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight Schedule Cibao Intl Corpx 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Hong Kong AfD cites 90% red links as a major factor in deletion and cites another article as an example of a perfectly valid article, Hotels in London, which consists primarily of a list of hotels, their location and the number of rooms. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight Schedule Cibao Intl hit the travel issue, as it was a "flight schedule" as suggested by the title. Precedent is clear that there is a place for articles such as this one, even if they contain information that might be distantly travel-related. As long as we're in agreement that this is solely a matter of interpretation, and not a violation of policy, I'll agree to disagree. Alansohn 07:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The nom's claims have not convinced me of a reason to delete the article. Egged in Israel can not even be compared with Greyhound in the US with regard to visibility and pervasiveness across the country. I think that using US standards to judge worthiness is not fair and needs to be scaled down when dealing with much smaller countries where institutions (like Egged) form the backbone of the country's economy. Oli claims that it is not encyclopedic but frankly, neither are any lists for that matter - never seen them in Britannica or World Book either. The page provides information that is not available anywhere else, period. IMO, the power of WP is that it is a repository of notable information. --Shuki 10:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Major transit systems are notable, they are characterised by their routes, and whether to have them in a separate article is an editing decision. Though useful is not enough by itself for a keep, it is a reasonable additional factor. DGG (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is information that is hard to find anywhere else. Extremely useful and helpful. Israel is a country that relies heavily on buses and this is basic information for anyone in Israel. Leppi 11:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as inarguably clear violation of WP:NOT. Eusebeus 12:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, major transport routes are notable. Kappa 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is nothing "Major" about every last suburban bus line. Samfreed 05:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• In its current form, this isn't very encyclopedic. The way to make it suitably encyclopedic would be to add history, like on list of bus routes in Manhattan. --NE2 09:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep At the very least the patterns of the bus routes (160's are to gush etzion, 900's is for haifa) is notable. I agree that history is needed - the night lines for example are a recent invention - but I don't see the need to expand and prune as a reason to delete. Jon513 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a flawed nomination. WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#TRAVEL are about directories (i.e. lists of names and telephone numbers) which this patently is not. The article is a useful summary which, as a work in progress, is subject to further improvement. --Redaktor 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The standard interpretation of WP:NOT allows for a list of routes. The featured article El Al for example, has a subarticle with its routes. Note that this info was originally in the parent article, but was branched by consensus. In fact, the WP:AIRPORT wikiproject has a whole section explaining how to create airline destination lists. If we are encouraged to create destination lists for airlines, then I see no reason not to create a similar list for buses. Wikipedia is not paper. nadav (talk) 03:49, 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 deleted. the wub "?!" 22:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magician's tale

Magician's tale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete nn books likely a hoax, tagged speedy A7, but technically and despite much debate A7 only applies to web content - books, fake books, etc. have to be afd'ed. About 1k ghits nearly all for a book by David Hunt itself ranked at #504,586 in sales at Amazon.com. Carlossuarez46 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete An article about a book series where the first book is "on on the way to being published" from an unknown author[6]? Don't see any way it can pass Wikipedia:Notability (books) - Fordan (talk) 21:26, 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 - nomination withdrawn. the wub "?!" 11:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish space school

Scottish space school (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails notability. This might be speedy delete. Davnel03 20:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

*Delete The article lacks context to ascertain any possible notability. --Stormbay 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The context is now clear and the notability has been established. --Stormbay 00:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Frag - can't see a claim to notability, possible spam as well. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - let's be clear; despite its gimmicky title this is not a school and is not spam - it is a government education programme, organised jointly with NASA. Government programmes are generally considered notable. In this case WP:N is easily met by a wealth of media coverage. Another reference is here. I am going to rewrite the article to make its status clear. TerriersFan 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - OK, I have rewritten the article and included cites from The Scotsman and the Scottish Parliament - sources for Scotland don't come any more reliable than those! TerriersFan 23:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a government sponsored educational program. How is that not notable? Neil ム 22:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:RS. How can a government sponsored space education program not be notable? Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Easily passes Wikipedia:Reliable sources and so appears to be factual. Has some of the appearance of a temporary government gimmick, so unsure if it passes Wikipedia:Notability is_not_temporary. Article is now decently written and well cited, but still has the smell of advertising. That being said, the future is unknown and article is not clearly non notable, so vote for a keep, if a weak one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Gimmicky but passes the required policies. Dbromage [Talk] 00:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Are there many other space schools in Scotland? The article seems to make rather explicit claims of notability, supported by reliable and verifiable sources that satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, uniquely notable as demonstrated above. Yamaguchi先生 04:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please withdraw nomination, when I nominated it the article was in a much worser state. Good job to the people that have since cleaned it up. Davnel03 08:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article has been cleaned up Lurker (said · done) 10:05, 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 Keep. Appearance in the ODNB is a significant argument for inclusion, unrebutted. Xoloz 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Pearce

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

Pearce doesn't appear to be a notable figure, even within the Victorian anti-vaccination movement, compared to well-documented contemporaries such as William Tebb (whose inclusion I strongly supported) He has only about four lines in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography in the article for his better-known son, the medical astrologer Alfred James Pearce. Also this article has been tagged for sourcing since February, and is well up for review, plus there are signs of WP:SOAP in the use of the selective quotation. Gordonofcartoon 21:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N, and WP:SOAP. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography; notable during his time for starting a movement of which a Google search suggests he still remains a figurehead. There seem to me to be signs of bias in the concerted recent AfDs of a number of subjects with an anti-vaccination stance. If selective quotation is a problem then fix it. Espresso Addict 03:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep we have always accepted ODNB as a sufficient standard of notability, as we do similar national biographic compendia. If he's worth a paragraph there, he's worth a paragraph here. I think their standards are as high as ours. If anyone thinks we are better able to judge than the professional historians there, I'd like to hear an argument for why. DGG (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • To the above comments:

1) He's notable or not, and the motive for the AFD doesn't affect that.

2) What Google results? "Suggests he still remains a figurehead" is not the same as third-party sourcing that he was at the time, as stated in the article.

3) I think there's no doubt that those who get a full article in the ODNB are notable. But the question is where to draw the line with those who get bit parts in other articles. All ODNB articles contain basic details of the subject's parents - but WP:NOTINHERITED works "upstream" too.

I've added what there is (plus a bit more I found in The Times) but it's not much. The Times makes no mention of him except the 1849 court case, and certainly nothing about his involvement in the vaccination controversy. Gordonofcartoon 11:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. First anti-vaccine medical man of note, and first to write an anti-vaccine book. john

That needs third-party citations. Gordonofcartoon 09:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 1868, you find an anti-vaccine book by a UK MD, any MD, before that, and an editor of a medical journal to boot. And if he wasn't notable you wouldn't be trying to delete him. john

WP:V: What medical journal? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". And assume good faith: I started the AFD because, going by level of coverage, he's considerably less notable than others in the same field. Only an aside in the ODNB, and (unlike Tebb, Hadwen, Collins, Creighton) his work in this area isn't covered in the Times of the period. Gordonofcartoon 15:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Of course he's notable, per DGG. History was not invented by the Internet. Bearian 19:02, 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 07:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Í Mynd

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

Delete nn album by nn band on a nn label. No assertion that this meets WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or possibly Speedy Delete as there is no assertion of any sort of notability. JCO312 20:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Harlowraman 21:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, and WP:MUSIC, WP:RS, and WP:N. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. andy 23:22, 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 07:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breyttir Tímar

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

Delete nn album by nn group on a nn label. No assertion that it meets WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or possibly Speedy Delete as there is no assertion of any sort of notability. JCO312 20:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC, and WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. andy 23:22, 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 07:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egó (album)

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

Delete nn album by nn group on a nn label. No assertion that it meets WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 20:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or possibly Speedy Delete as there is no assertion of any sort of notability. JCO312 20:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteIn order to assert notability, there needs to be text. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - why was the speedy declined? All this author does is create partial track listings of non-notable albums. If it wasn't idiotic it would be troll-like. andy 23:20, 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. Walton^One 15:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rivalry Records

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

No independent sources establishing notability. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 20:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N, and WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No independent sources; largely a track list. Xoloz 14:44, 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 all. If someone wants to be bold and redirect them all as well, that's fine. Wizardman 04:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide episodes

Guide to: Health & Jealousy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Guide to: Field Trips, Permission Slips, Signs, & Weasels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Tests & When You Like Someone Who Is Going Out With Someone Else (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Spring Fever & School Newspaper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Money and Parties (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Getting Organized & Extra Credit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Cellphones & Woodshop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Boys & Girls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Hallways & Friends Moving (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: The Library & Volunteering (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Revenge & School Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: The Bus & Bad Hair Days (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Art Class & Lost and Found (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Reading & Principals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Double Dating & The Last Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Failing & Tutors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Music Class and Class Clown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Yearbook and Career Week (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Spirit Week and Clothes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Secrets and School Car Wash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Shyness and Nicknames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Valentine's Day and School Websites (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Dares and Bad Habits (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Gross Biology Dissection and Upperclassmen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Your Body and Procrastination (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Vice Principals and Mondays (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Notebooks and Math (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: School Clubs and Video Projects (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Pep Rallies and Lunch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: The New Semester and Electives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Computer Lab and Backpacks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Rumors and Photo Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prods, without explanations. All these pages are articles from episodes of the Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide series, these articles are merely plots of these episodes and don't explain why these episodes are outstanding episodes, and notable. They therefore don't meet WP:EPISODE. Many of the other episodes of this series are already deleted. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, these are basically unsourced plot synopses and trivia pages. They do not meet WP:EPISODE. --Coredesat 20:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:NOT#PLOT. None of them meet WP:EPISODE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Deleta all per nom.--Max Talk (+) 21:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, these are generally plot summaries without analysis or criticism. We don't do straight plot summaries here. Squidfryerchef 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All Hooray! Not that I don't like Ned, but I'm glad to see someone take the lead in nominating articles about TV episodes for deletion. If I want to read about an episode of Ned, I'll read it in volume "N" of the World Book Mandsford 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I havent seen the show, but it sounds like a very interesting concept, even if it sounds a bit preachy (i.e. don't listen to rumors, etc. ). I wish the effort that went into writing up these plot summaries could be used to write a good, solid main article on the series, which undoubtedly has been discussed in magzaines and newspapers that can be cited. Squidfryerchef 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into the LOE - and I can bet with certainty this AFD will devolve into silliness. Will ^(talk) 23:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and add commentary Its a lot easier to find commentary than to delete and have to recreate a summary. There should be a tag created to announce its missing "critical commentary". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per Ten Pound Hammer. Dbromage [Talk] 00:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect No particular need for them to be deleted, they can be merged and redirect to the LOE page. i ^said 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all in failing WP:EPISODE per lacking coverage from reliable sources Corpx 04:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete i don';t think we'll find commentary for these. I can't see anyone else caring that much about the plots. Of course, I might be wrong, so let's see if Richard can find some. DGG (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all to List of Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide episodes. That way, if notability-establishing sources and commentary are forthcoming later, the summaries won't be completely lost. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Josiah Rowe and per WP:EPISODE which actually says to merge and redirect, not delete. DHowell 22:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all and expand the list to include brief episode summaries. --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to a "list of episodes" page. --Fabrictramp 13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Josiah and WP:EPISODE. Neranei (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as per nom Harlowraman 21:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - as failing WP:V due to lack of supporting sources. Further there are no 'real-world influences' nor any sourced critical commentary. TerriersFan 21:07, 23 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 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Miller (guitarist)

Justin Miller (guitarist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No case for note after some 8 months and some 3 months tagged. Made good faith attempt to remedy, but found no readily available sources on Google News, no press sources. No secondary sources in article at all: two point to official site and the other to a forum post by the subject. Presumably non-notable musician. MrZaius^talk 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Time's up, there's the door. - Richfife 20:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable.Sethacus 20:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no secondary sources at all, and no assertions to passing WP:MUSIC - Zeibura ^(Talk) 23:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion As the creator of this article, I appreciate the and respect the opinions on this page although I don't agree with them. I think we have to ask ourselves this fundamental question: is Wikipedia going to become a place, for example, where only those guitarists who have attained the level of achievement of a Jimi Hendrix or Eric Clapton receive an article. I prefer to spend my time creating content rather than tearing down the work of others, with an exception for articles that are created for crass commercial purposes (advertisements).--Hokeman 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• There are many, many independent and small-scale musicians and bands covered here. The simplest threshold is multiple Wikipedia:Reliable sources covering the subject. Meet WP:MUSIC with strong sources, and the nomination will gladly be withdrawn. I unfortunately was unable to do so, myself. MrZaius^talk 02:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I read the Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:Music with strong sources sections as per your suggestion; however it's still not clear to me exactly where we draw the line as to who is "big time" enough to have his or her own article in Wikipedia. There's a lot of subjective decision making here. Miller is no Elvis, but he is a legitimate entertainer who has performed for thousands of people. --Hokeman 04:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• There's nothing subjective about it - Multiple independent, verifiable sources are required to make a strong case for notability. All that we have to point are a forum post by the bio's subject and a couple links to his personal site. Again, given that, I'd gladly withdraw the nom. MrZaius^talk 05:40, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetable Rights Militant Movement

Vegetable Rights Militant Movement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm new here, but I think the fact that it is a joke is not reason enough to delete it. So let's delete it because it has no content. Man It's So Loud In Here 20:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How does deleting because it has little content make sense? Isn't this site supposed to be about collaborative information? Let someone start the article and others contribute. Phred00— Phred00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }

• Delete as non notable and per no sources. meshach 20:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete maybe A7-able jokey blog. Needs sources to be considered. — brighterorange (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete That joke's practically an antique. - Richfife 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 20:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Meshach Harlowraman 22:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS, and WP:HOAX. No sources provided. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Joke or not, it fails WP:N and WP:V. Dbromage [Talk] 00:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, ridiculous organization. --musicpvm 03:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:V, and a very likely WP:HOAX.-- danntm ^T _C 18:53, 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 redirect to It Won't Be Soon Before Long. Singularity 07:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Won't Go Home Without You

Won't Go Home Without You (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As the article itself asserts, this is pure speculation. A sticker placed on the plastic shrinkwrap of a CD is not a reliable source. Suggest delete or merge to the album article until an official announcement is made. - eo 19:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete It's possible the article creator is right, but we don't know yet. WP:CBALL. - Richfife 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A sticker on the CD does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, also delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to It Won't Be Soon Before Long (no need to merge—pure speculation). Precious Roy 16:02, 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 As Kappa points out, it is at best unclear, from policy and the discussion below, whether "manner of death" is a defining characteristic meriting a category. The list is limited to notable people by virtue of its being in an encyclopedia -- a name change to reflect this is a choice left to talk page discussion. Given these two considerations, at least some of the deletion arguments below are weakened; and so, no consensus exists. Xoloz 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of people who died in road accidents

Another list that is better served as a category, hundreds of thousands of people are killed in road accidents every year. See WP:LISTCRUFT, Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unmaintainable, shouldn't even be a category. Man It's So Loud In Here 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable and not very useful. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 20:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not very useful...unmaintainable and millions of people die from road accidents every year.--PrestonH 20:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Although it looks better than most of lists here I do not think it is maintainable now. It may be recreated when tag based system gets implemented by MediaWiki. Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and we will have millions.It can be mentioned in there Bio if notable people.Harlowraman 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep They're all blue links, so the nonsensical, Carl Sagan style, "billions and billions" argument doesn't really apply. And unmaintainable? Geez, does a famous person die every day in a car wreck? I'll have to stay off the road. And yes, it is notable if a person died "before their time" because of a motor vehicle accident. This one is well-organized and encylopedic. I'll have to save it since the boo-birds are winning this one. Mandsford 22:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOT#INFO. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 22:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people by cause of death and the fact that cause of death is not a defining characteristic, therefore it is not appropriate for a category. Kappa 23:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and annotate further. Category and list should both be available for navigation. Having an existing category is never a reason to delete a list. Cause of death is very encyclopedic, and mentioned in every obituary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If 'It's Useful', which it is, is not an argument which can be used here, then why is 'it's not useful' justifiable as a reason for deletion? If it needs 'famous' to be put into the title to prevent it becoming a repository of 'billions and billions' of names so be it. Arguments saying that it is 'unmaintainable' are clearly false as it obviously is well maintained. The intersection of fast cars and fame is a common and legitimate topic of interest and is just the sort of information which wikipedia excels, or at least should excel, in providing. Nick mallory 00:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It should be more maintainable in a category that a listcruft individual article.--JForget 02:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Loads of people die in car accidents, there is no need for a list. No need for a category. If the fact that they died in a car accident in notable or worth mentioning, it should be done in the article. i ^said 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see no need to categorize people by the way of their passing. There is just way too many ways out there to die. Corpx 04:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it will never be an accuarate or complete list; thus it can not be maintained. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  Why can't it be accurate? Kappa 11:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it's very, uhm, odd, but the list is not arbitrary as long as it is limited to blue links of already notable deceased people. The annotations are sortable tables make it more useful than any category.-- danntm ^T _C 19:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It feels strange to be on the other side of a list afd, but famous people killed in cars is actually encyclopedic, IMO. Easy enough to verify and hardly arbitrary. Clarityfiend 22:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Move to List of notable people who died in road accidents. such lists should contain only notable entries. --SmokeyJoe 12:27, 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. Xoloz 15:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization of Triangles

Organization of Triangles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Still a nn group, even after research. This article was first kept as no consensus, but further research has turned up no third-party sources either online or in the Masonic Library in Triangles' home state of New York. There are only 13 chapters in the entire state, and they are concentrated in small areas, and there isn't even any local coverage. Thus, there is still no assertion of notability. MSJapan 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; the group gets very little reference that I could see, except for refs such as "so-and-so, Organization of Triangles group leader" and the like. Nom states that printed material, even in the Masonic Library, is missing - that suggests the group just doesn't make WP:ORG. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I repeat my arguments from the previous AFD, with the addition that I could find not one external source on the orgainzation... even at the Masonic Library in it's home state (which did not even have internal sources). This leads me to seriously doubt that any external sources exist. Blueboar 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG and WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and dubious article. docboat 06:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I realise that i am biased here, seeing as i have had some small degree of input into the article. However, the organisation does exist. I would argue if anything that if the article itself is not large enough or detailed enough or interesting enough to keep by itself, then it could be merged into some other article that deals with masonic youth organisations for girls that have stemmed from the Order of the Eastern star. As many of them have including one that i was planning on writing a short article on "the constellation of junior stars." This article could easily be included in something like that. I feel that the information should be included at least for some degree of completion's sake. Ithillion 10:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I might be willing to support a brief mention of these organizations in a more over-arching article on masonic youth orgs in general... Perhaps a section in the main Eastern star article on "offshoots and youth groups" or something? It's just that they are not notable enough for an article on their own. Blueboar 15:59, 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. Walton^One 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of people from Harrisburg

List of people from Harrisburg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unmaintainable and unverifiable list. Man It's So Loud In Here 19:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom as unverifiable list. Better suited as a category. (Oh, and which Harrisburg? I believe there're several more than just the one in PA.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - definitely a better option to have this as a category. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. This is what categories are for. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Most people don't know that it's the capital of Pennsylvania, let alone care that someone is from this place. However, in the spirit of civic pride, let the city's favorite sons and favorite daughters live in a Harrisburg Hall of Fame within the main article. Mandsford 23:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and categorize please. My preference for list of people from ____ is to categorize Corpx 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This list is annotated and structured, and so complements, rather than duplicates the category (see WP:CLS), and it meets the stand-alone list guidelines. Harrisburg is a redirect to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, so there's no reason to assume that the Harrisburg referenced in this article's title would be any other Harrisburg (and if there was, then a disambiguation link could be added to the top of the article). I don't see why the list would be "unmaintainable and unverifiable" as long as the list is limited to those people who are notable and are verifiably from Harrisburg. Finally, no policy-based reason has been given to delete other than WP:NOT#INFO which says nothing applicable to lists of people based on city of origin. DHowell 23:09, 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 07:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetable Rights

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

This article has existed for three years and it still has no content. It was tagged with a cleanup, but it obviously never was. Man It's So Loud In Here 19:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - relates to NN joke website www.vegetablecruelty.com. You might want to add Vegetable Rights Militant Movement to the AFD. Gordonofcartoon 19:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable and per no sources. meshach 20:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete Pavel Vozenilek 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete - bias is not supposed to be a part of Wikipedia, last time I checked. Who here can tell any other whether their cause is legitimate or not? Phred00— Phred00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Who can tell whether it's legitimate or not? Join the cause if you wish, but I never heard a vegetable cry in pain...Mandsford 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete In looking over the article, this phrase "a new issue largely considered frivolous, unworthy and illogical by it's loudest opponents: animal rights activists" jumped out and grabbed me as being both a joke and POV at the same time. 216.52.210.36 20:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Pat Payne 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (didn't realize I wasn't logged in ^_^*)
• Delete omnivorously. Reeks of a joke/hoax. Antelan ^talk 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX, and WP:RS especially. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Joke or not, it fails WP:N and WP:V. Dbromage [Talk] 00:55, 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 07:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DbXpert for Oracle

DbXpert for Oracle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable technology; spam. The Evil Spartan 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTABILITY Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not suggested. Pavel Vozenilek 20:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per The Evil Spartan. Jakew 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM. Also, there is a WP:COI. The developed is the only contributor to the article. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 22:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it I am doing some research on the software tools on the Database marketing. Wikipedia provides a great place for me to search for related tool. I can seach the tool here such Toad (Software), Advanced Query Tool, Sequence profiling tool, etc. I would sugget to keep it. Kekedada (talk • contribs) — Kekedada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Suggest to Keep, useful to reader. It's an article to provide information about the tools available, not a WP:SPAM- Maahela (talk • contribs) — Maahela (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. Singularity 07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SquareMania

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

Non-notable computer game; author has a conflict of interest The Evil Spartan 18:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:N, WP:WEB, and WP:V and probably others. Jauerback 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Also fails WP:RS, and WP:COI. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I knew there had to be others... Jauerback 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 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. Whatever merging one might choose to do would be minimal mentions, and would not really require attribution to this article (One should use a reliable source for the mention, of course.) Xoloz 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Procreation Movement

Anti-Procreation Movement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

self-promoting article about a non-notable organization, the so-called Anti-Procreation Movement. The media references aren't about this specific organization, but about other organizations with a similar agenda. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)*

• Delete per WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Man It's So Loud In Here 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is the creation of this article counter to the concept of Anti-procreation? I've learned that the three categories of human existence are survival, boredom and entertainment. Now that I know that, what am I going to do?

Maybe you can merge this back into Arthur Schopenhauer. Mandsford 00:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above and merge anything useful and referenced to Arthur Schopenhauer. Dbromage [Talk] 00:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete + Partial Merge This seems to be related to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement or Zero-population growth movement. Where most VHEM groups are radical environmentalists this group seems to be radical followers of Schopenhauer. I would add mention of it to the VHEM page but I don't think it really needs its own page. Jmm6f488 05:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested above. The major source, the NYT article, is not actually about the subject, just about those who do not wish to have children for whatever reason, or subsidize those who do--which is a much less drastic matter entirely.DGG (talk) 08:25, 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. Walton^One 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garachop

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

Probable hoax - place doesn't appear on Google maps, for instance, and no relevant Google hits. Oli Filth 18:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, page makes no sense, per WP:CSD#G1, tagged. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - appears to be a hoax, I have found no info on this whatsoever Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It appears to be a real place. Please see: [7]. Apparently, they make carpets there. That said, it's still probably a candidate for speedy deletion unless the author reworks the page. bfigura ^(talk) 19:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree it was worth checking out rather than simply assuming hoax because it doesn't immediately Google. However, this article appears to be conflating two different places. Google finds Iormuganlo - more commonly spelt Iormughanlo, Sagarejo region exists as stated in eastern Georgia. Garachop, however, is somewhere in the oilfields of Turkmenistan, on the other side of the Caspian Sea. Gordonofcartoon 19:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - lacks non-trivial media coverage Addhoc 19:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename "Iormuganlo" - This is a strange one. The Georgia region "Iormuganlo" actually does exist [8][9]. Why this article is listed under an "unofficial" name is beyond me. But it is a real place. --Oakshade 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article asserts that Garachop is famous for its contribution to Nagorno Karabakh war with Armenia, though that seems to be a well-kept secret. I note that there's no link to any other Wikipedia. Maybe the author can write about Iormuganlo. Mandsford 00:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Lormuganlo also lacks non-trivial media coverage. Addhoc 11:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Iormughanlo is a real place (and the satellite photo shows a mid-size village of probably 1000-2000 people) and there are some results for Iormughanlo ("i", not "l") and Iormuganlo. However, I can find no source to confirm the existence of Garachop district in Georgia. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have created a new article about the village of Iormughanlo using a few online sources I could find via Google. I expect that there are also local news sources about the village and there may even be online sources that I missed. Since Garachop is the name of a gas deposit in Turkmenistan, I still think that this article should be deleted without redirecting. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Further searching only seems to confirm that there is little or no connection between Garachop and Iormughanlo. The closest connection I could find is this: Garachop seems to refer to an Azerbaijani carpet style (see link) and Iormughanlo is located near the Georgian-Azerbaijani border and is populated by ethnic Azeris. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:41, 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 07:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synchronous destructors

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

Seems to be a how-to guide, possible nonsense and/or original research. "Synchronous destructors" gets about 5 google hits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the Hammer, and many aspects of WP:NOT. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and maybe add notable parts to Object-oriented programming. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Rarely used terminology, non-encyclopedic form. The differences between destructors and finalizers (more common terms), their implementation and preferred style of programming is frequent hot topic of debates but those are bellow threshold of encyclopedical notability. Pavel Vozenilek 20:36, 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. No prejudice against re-creation with notability firmly established by reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emerson Flag Co.

Emerson Flag Co. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Was spamish at first. Spam was cleaned up however the article still lacks sources and is possibly not notable. -WarthogDemon 17:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP. Also WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above or add more info. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Mostly because of the second oldest flag company in the US, but more info would be needed that's for sure, so mostly a conditional keep on that one.--JForget 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, might be the second oldest, but currents its unverifiable per lack of coverage from secondary sources Corpx 03:57, 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 keep. W.marsh 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etuvluk River

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

non-notable, possibly non-existent river, not in GNIS (http://geonames.usgs.gov/redirect.html) or on any map I could find, Google only brings up Wikipedia mirrors Kmusser 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The river appears in Alaska laws 5 AAC 99.025. Customary and traditional uses of game populations. Apparently it's in or near the Schwatka Mountains. It's a real river. Flyguy649 ^talk_contribs 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Considering that's the only reference I'm tempted to say it may be a typo or something - if it is a real river I'd expect it to be on a map somewhere, I've checked the most detailed maps made of the Schwatka Mountain area and it's not on there. Kmusser 13:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you may be right. If you look here (roughly south of Peard Bay and roughly east of Cape Krusenstern), you can see that there is a River Etivluk. And there seem to be plenty of reliable sources that discuss it. Jakew 13:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per flyguy. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above - it is a real river. Needs more info. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a real river and thus notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Mention of the river is already included in Wikipedia, in List of rivers in Alaska, otherwise I'd have suggested merging. If the river is notable enough to justify its own article, we need some sources to allow us to state - and verify - more than just the existence of the subject. But - like the nominator - I've been unsuccessful in my own best efforts to find these sources. Jakew 22:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per refs provided by Flyguy. It is a real river. --Oakshade 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Flyguy649's ref confirms the subject's existence, but I can't personally see how we can use it as a source. It is apparently part of a table. To quote, it states: "...that portion east of the Etuvluk River (Schwatka Mountains) positive 2 - 4 Units...". Jakew 22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as geographical features are generally notable, being permanent and all. --Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:N states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ... "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." Jakew 10:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTCOMES, geographical features such as rivers are considered inherently notable. --Oakshade 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that it states: "This page is not policy. This page is for quick, easy-to-follow tips. Detailed rules, guidelines, and suggestions should go on the various notability policy pages instead." I interpret that to mean that if the minimum standard of WP:N is met, then there are no further requirements for a river. Do you think that's reasonable? Jakew 21:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:N is not policy either. WP:CONSENSUS (which is policy) has recognized "inherent" notability of certain topics like towns and geographical features even if they have zero significant coverage by reliable sources. Even WP:N states at the top that "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." --Oakshade 22:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus supposedly always means "within the framework of established policy and practice" (that's a quote). If a subject hasn't received any coverage in reliable sources, then it cannot exist without violating WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. In this case, it has only received very trivial coverage in a single source, which means that we basically have nothing to say about it. Notability, in general, is a WP:V issue: if a subject has been noted, it is notable (though we may have additional requirements). If there's a consensus that rivers are an exception to WP:N, or indeed WP:V, then surely we need to change policy/guidelines to reflect that? Jakew 10:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And within the framework of established policy and practice, practice especially, certain topics like geographical features are considered inherently notable with no coverage from secondary sources. --Oakshade 16:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Practice only, apparently. Which is a particular problem in this case, because there is only a single source, which is a web reprint at a company's website, and may well contain a misprint for Etivluk (see above comment by Kmusser and my reply). So it is entirely possible that Wikipedia will declare that a non-existent river not only exists but is notable enough to warrant its own page. Which I find worrying. Jakew 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:N, right at the top A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right. That's why we have specialized standards. They can all be changed, of course, if there is consensus to change them. If WP:N were the only guideline, everything would be argued from first principles, and the result would be chaos. The more things we can make into brightline groups by consensus, the better. I do not want to discuss 5000 articles a day here. DGG (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A1: it's empty. "Superman is a hero" is not an article. "The Etuvluk River is a river" is not an article. It's not even a lexically meaningful sentence. Shame on you "keep, notable" voters. It's not about notability: it's about validity as an article, and this isn't. Geogre 02:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Update - Somebody very inappropriately speedy deleted this article as this AfD is in progress. I just put it to DRV here. --Oakshade 04:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It was the admin who commented just above you. I suggest he reverse himself. I'd undelete it myself if I hadn't been participating in the discussion. DGG (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rewritten The article was speedy deleted and recreated at a different spelling at this point in the conversation. The rewritten article is radically different than the original version, and some prior comments may be less relevant or no longer true. GRBerry 18:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to note that with over 250,000 rivers in the US alone[10], and obviously a lot more in the wider world, I think that we need to develop some guidelines for notability of rivers. In the absence of such guidelines, however, I would like to state that most of my concerns about Etuvluk River do not apply to the new article (Etivluk River). Jakew 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment My original criteria for deletion does not apply to the new article. Kmusser 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the rewrite. --Myles Long 20:52, 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. Walton^One 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of forests

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

Should be replaced with something similiar to Category:State forests in the United States, instead of being a directory of all the forests/woodlands in the world Corpx 17:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:NOT#INFO. Better served as a category. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• I think this list could be clarified by stating what criteria are necessary to put it on the list. United States national and state forests count as established protected areas, for instance. I don't know if the Black Forest in Germany is a protected area (i.e. in the IUCN database), but it's famous enough. Keep for now until some criteria are sorted out. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and convert to a Category, and state criteria for addition to the category. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Categorify ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Should be in categories per continent and/or country depending on the case.--JForget 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and convert into a category. i ^said 03:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• This is not so much a matter of list vs. category, but the central problem is that there are no criteria for inclusion in this list. Is this supposed to list every woodland in the world, including my and your backyard or is it a list of protected areas of various status? Right now it is useless. --h-stt !? 10:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Categorize and Delete This is to broad of a list (or probably even category) to have. It should be broken down into lists and sub-categories such as US National Forests or Large Forests in Montana.I also think thatYamaka122 ...:) 13:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I also that Elkman is right that if it is kept (or if its divided into other lists) there needs to be criteria for notability and such. Yamaka122 ...:) 13:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Categories do not replace lists. Intro can be expanded to explain criteria. Rmhermen 16:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep after defining criteria for inclusion - this would be a useful "world" list for collecting national and perahps state level forest lists in. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Criteira for inclusion can be expanded leading to a maintainable and finite list. If after this the list is still too unwieldy it could be a top level list i.e. a list of lists of forests which is what it already does under some sections (US, Poland etc). Suicidalhamster 21:50, 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 Merge and redirect to Petra Němcová. Walton^One 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Atlee

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

Non-notable. Only known because of his death in the 2004 Asian Tsunami. Davnel03 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, and WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Many died in the Asian floods, don't require an entire encyclopedic article about them. Delete per above. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge Shorten and merge to Petra Němcová the article about his supermodel fiance, who was also injured in the tsunami. Edison 19:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested by Edison; I think most of what was presented here that's relevant and encyclopedic is already there, to be honest. Doesn't appear to have much to stand on his own for notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as a potentially valid search term. Atlee was a fashion photographer but searches indicate his notability was minimal prior to his death. --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 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 close and take this redirect to WP:RFD. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damu Ridas Vol.2: How Deep Is Your Hood

Damu Ridas Vol.2: How Deep Is Your Hood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The name of this articles is not correct, the right one is "How Deep Is Your Hood" and no article is linking to it. Tasco 0 17:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; my given reason is above.
• Wrong venue You want WP:RFD, as this page is a redirect. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm moving this to RFD Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:50, 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. Singularity 07:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack_Mantos

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

Not a notable person for an encyclopediaWisdum 17:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - almost the only information I can find on google about him is from Wikipedia and its mirrors. The only other sources appears to be from this Los Angeles Times article, and thus, it is non-notable. The Evil Spartan 17:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS, and WP:BIO. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. This appears to be part of an effort to document people in the est/Landmark movement; we've previously deleted several "training leaders" or whatever they're called. --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 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. — Scientizzle 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back on Track

Back on Track (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Really, no notability established for this DVD and looks to be published by the local newspaper Corpx 17:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - cannot find any info about it execpt a listing on eBay 1. Probably unnecessary. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS, and WP:MUSIC. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:30, 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 close wrong venue; take to WP:RFD. Non-admin close Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damu Ridas Vol.1: Dangerous

Damu Ridas Vol.1: Dangerous (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The name of this articles is not correct, the right one is "Damu Ridas (album)" and no article is linking to it. Tasco 0 17:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; my given reason is above.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion as an attack page on a living person JoJan 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Rudat

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

Appears to be just an unreferenced attack page. No citations, no notability established and a number of insults. Recommend deletion. Dugwiki 17:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• CSD - Tagged as db-attack Corpx 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - highly likely attack page. Davnel03 17:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Subject fails WP:BIO, and WP:N. The article also falls under the CSD parts WP:CSD#A7, and WP:CSD#G10. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Rewrite - attack page, very unsourced, lacking info and/or sources, it can be rewritten if this person is notable enough, appears to be a real person 1 2. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 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 — Caknuck 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diary of the Dead (1976 film)

Diary of the Dead (1976 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This film is non-notable. It only has six votes on the IMDB. It can't be very worthy of an encyclopedia with this status. MalwareSmarts 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, The IMDB page is a reliable source. All movies have some notability. The number of IMDB votes does not control what goes in Wikipedia. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - while the number of votes a film has received on IMDB is not a reason for deletion, lack of notability is. IMDB is not really that reliable of a source as it relies heavily on user input, and even if it were, all films are not inherently notable and a source establishing the mere existence of the film does not establish the notability of it. Otto4711 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If IMDB is "not really that reliable of a source as it relies heavily on user input," then what is Wikipedia since it relies entirely on "user input"? -75.130.90.56 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)-

• Wikipedia is absolutely not a reliable source. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Otto4711 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, rationale is not valid. Movies are generally notable if they're listed on IMDb... but this one may be a little low on WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Can you point out where it says that an IMDB listing establishes notability? It certainly doesn't for actors and it's unclear where a different standard for films is coming from. Otto4711 19:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per User:TenPoundHammer. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The movie is also listed on Rotten Tomatoes in addition to IMDb, but that fact raises an interesting point; Rotten Tomatoes doesn't have any critical reviews of this 30 year old movie. That, and a Google search, would seem to indicate a lack of notability through reliable sources for this movie. Leebo ^T/C 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote this article. The reason there are so few reviews is because it has not been released since the early days of video. Given the personnel involved, if it were to be issued on DVD, even quietly, the number of Google hits would skyrocket. I don't think that's an invocation of crystal ball. All I am saying is that obscurity alone does not make a film not notable. If it does, then if Baby Geniuses goes out of print for 20 years, its article should be deleted.--Scottandrewhutchins 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is more of a style question, but the article has existed since November 2006 as nothing more than a plot summary. If there isn't anything else to be said (due to lack of reliable sources) do you feel it can grow beyond a stub? Leebo ^T/C 20:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • It's possible, if one could find more information. I'll check next time I'm at the Performing Arts Library.--Scottandrewhutchins 03:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable Actor, Another Notable Actor, Notable Director (at least as far as the television industry & Broadway are concerned), A positive review that notes the film is filled with recognizable character actors... Other notable actors & actresses as well. -75.130.90.56 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Notability is not inherited. The notability of the participants does not make the film notable. Otto4711 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the film is obviously notable enough. It is listed at many popular film websites. It does not need mass coverage in the media to have an article. --musicpvm 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see no coverage in media that indicates notability. Being listed on large databases of movies that do not have viable critical commentary does not assert notability. i ^said 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP Because of the lack of crew credits on IMDb, I just went and looked at the on the film, particulrly for the writing credits, which are not on the cover, and saw that the film is based on a novel that is considered notable enought for an article, even as a much smaller one than this: One Across, Two Down. --Scottandrewhutchins 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ironically enough, if a book has been made into a movie, it is automatically notable. The movie, however, is not. i ^said 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the film is better known? That doesn't make any sense. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says the film is better known? And no, I'm just saying that the notability criteria for books say that if it has been made into a movie, its notable. Not the other way around. i ^said 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your discovery seems to present a case for merging the Diary of the Dead information to the One Across, Two Down article as an adaptation, since there isn't much other content in the adaptation's article. Leebo ^T/C 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This may not have been a hit, but it's a mainstream film with prominent contributors, and the article is verifiable. Postlebury 19:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, notability is not inherited. The fact the James Earl Jones starred in Blood Tide during the 1980s does not make that a notable film. MalwareSmarts 20:36, 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 07:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Parker and the Dark Machine

Steve Parker and the Dark Machine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Clearly a non-notable book; appears to be the creation of the author of this article. The Evil Spartan 16:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reviews etc are found - WP is the only result in a google search of the name Corpx 16:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS. Clearly a WP:COI, and possibly even a WP:HOAX. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable at this point, and the COI adds to the problem. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete COI. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Corpx. --mordicai. 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless some third-party sources can be found — preferably by someone other than Savithru Jayasinghe (talk · contribs), although if he wants to post links to sources on the article's talk page that's fine. Incidentally, I'm disappointed that until I came along nobody had even tried to explain WP:COI or WP:BK to this user. Nominating a new user's article for deletion without explaining the reasons constitutes biting the newbies, and someone should have rectified this before now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:20, 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, clear consensus established. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery

Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fish hatchery. No reliable sources provided in article. Article strongly fails Wikipedia:Notability. If it were a private hatchery instead of federal, I'd speedy delete as a non-notable company, but I'll grant that claiming to be a national hatchery is just enough of a claim to spare it speedy deletion and send it to AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I know that this isn't in the guidelines, but it would seem like a shame to me to delete something whose home website has a .gov extension. There is little information provided in this article, but I'll do a little research to see if I can add to it. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's just a hatchery. There's nothing notable about it, and no sources. List of National Fish Hatcheries in the United States documents that it exists, and that's about all we really need to know. Sxeptomaniac 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as it stands now, it's just a directory entry. We're really not losing much to delete and start over at a later date. Corpx 16:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just expanded this article to include more information about the fish that the hatchery cares for and its facilities. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep based on the changes there, plus there's some 3rd party sourcing here Corpx 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per Corpx. bfigura ^(talk) 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Above. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Famous , and now adequaely sourced. DGG (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The article is expanded, but there are still no independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sources do exist, as per my google news link earlier, but I do not feel strongly enough about this topic to pay to read & cite those articles Corpx 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• You know, as much as Wikipedia bills itself as the "free encyclopedia," I don't think an editor should have to pay to keep an article around. I'll concede that sources exist, and therefore it is notable, even without quoting the little preview shreds in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article is fine now. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Technically, I can't withdraw my nomination, since Sxeptomaniac still has an open !vote of delete. However, WP:SNOW tells me that this process is going to end with a keep result, so nothing's gained by leaving it open. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 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 No consensus. Bduke 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Architects Sketch

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

Delete - prod removed by anon stating "Monty Python sketches are notable!" Well no, they're not inherently notable. In addition to notability issues this article is a clear violation of WP:PLOT, being nothing but a description of the sketch. Otto4711 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless real world sources are found to give notability Corpx 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PLOT. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Violates WP:PLOT. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The sketch itself has been cited in scholarly works.[11] Suggest cleanup to remove the bulk of the plot and discuss the cultural impact of the sketch.Dbromage [Talk] 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• A simple reference or citation doesn't constitute a reliable source attesting to the notability of the specific sketch. Otto4711 14:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Among the most well-known of the group's sketches; certainly better known than many of the individual articles on episodes of lesser-known television series. Clean up and retain. Kablammo 09:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• How well-known the sketch may be is not relevant. How well-known it is in comparison to other articles is not relevant. Otto4711 14:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• What is relevant is notability. With over a thousand web references, from the usual fan sites (numerous), to cultural references ([12]) , to the serious (e.g., [13], [14]) the sketch has achieved a certain degree of notability. Kablammo 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Your first "source" appears to be a biographical article, or "sketch," about an actual architect. It does not appear to have anything to do with the Python routine and it is also at a subscription site and so is not suited for use as a source here anyway. Your second "source" is about software architecture and merely quotes a line. Your third "source" is about Britain's response to the death of Princess Diana and while I did not read every word of it a scan through it did not indicate to me any great level of connection between it and the Python routine. Simply being mentioned in passing or even quoted in a piece that is not substantially about the sketch does not establish the notability of the sketch. Otto4711 18:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• One point here needs clarification, Otto: links to subscription sites are acceptable as sources for Wikipedia articles. WP:EL's restriction is about links not used as sources. I recently had to clarify this at Wikipedia talk:External links#Question about sites requiring registration, and the consensus was clear — the notion that links to subscription sites are never acceptable appears to be a widespread error. I don't know whether the Chronicle of Higher Education link is useful for the article or not, but the mere fact that it's subscription-only shouldn't prevent it from being used as a source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• The full-text version is cached at Google but adds nothing more. My point in referencing it is to show that the "Architects Sketch" (or "Architect Sketch") has become part of the vernacular; that it is a cultural reference like other well-known comedic sketches; and that even the use of its title on an unrelated essay is a cultural reference known to readers. I understand and respect the arguments and votes for deletion, and I hope that the fact deletion has been proposed will lead to improvement of the article and therefore its retention. The subject is notable but the page needs work. Kablammo 21:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Kablammo. I'll make some slight improvements too in the next moment. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. The RT Fielding essay references the sketch in a non-trivial way, and this thesis (.doc file) specifically examines the sketch in translation. These citations (or similar ones) should be incorporated into the article, which does need to provide more cultural context (e.g. discussion of attitudes towards Freemasonry, etc.). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• A student's English paper that quotes a few lines from the sketch in an appendix on a half-page out of a 70+ page document? Are you kidding? Is this even published anywhere or did the writer just post it on her website? This is a paper about how well translators do in translating comedy sketches from one language to another and Architects Sketch was picked, not because it is a particularly notable sketch, but because it has a large number of words that might give a translator difficulty. The notion that this somehow establishes the notability of the sketch is ludicrous. It's in all likelihood not a reliable source and it's not "substantially about the subject" of the sketch, as required by WP:N. Otto4711 22:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I don't read Czech, but it looks to me as if the thesis was published by the university. That makes it a reliable source in my book. Incidentally, I'm not certain whether this article is referencing this sketch or another one, but if it's the same sketch that could also be a notability-establishing source. —07:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Even if the thesis has been published, it is still not substantially about the sketch and does not establish the notability of the sketch. El Mystico and Janet is a completely different sketch. Otto4711 12:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - at the very least the article should be renamed as Architects Sketch (Monty Python sketch) or something to that effect. I thought the problem was going to be that the candidate article constituted nothing more than a dictionary definition of one of the formal processes an Architect might use in bidding on a construction project; or something on those lines. As it stands the article is potentially misleading and unhelpful for someone who might be wanting to know more about Architects and how they prepare their drawings for clients. I think if it can be named correctly and worked into the Monty Python wikiproject for proper upgrades and maintenance, then it could potentially be improved to the point that it could stand alone as a notable MP skit. At present, the improper name is the more critical problem. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would say that the critical problem is that the sketch does not have the requisite notability to have its own Wikipedia article. Otto4711 17:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom and WP:PLOT Harlowraman 20:58, 23 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. — Scientizzle 20:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who - Battles in Time Trading Cards

Doctor Who - Battles in Time Trading Cards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is just a list of trading cards- unencyclopedic, and possibly a copyvio. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminent collection of infomation. Prod failed. OZOO (What?) 16:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I agree this is directory level information Corpx 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge what can be merged into Doctor Who merchandise Will ^(talk) 23:02, 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Route 193 (STM)

Route 193 (STM) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An article for each local bus route is not needed. Rufus843 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above, unless we're missing some sort of special significance for this route? Corpx 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I tagged it for CSD Corpx 16:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. No "multiple reliable and independent sources" with substantial coverage to satisfy WP:N, and no guideline saying that every bus route in the history of the world has inherent notability. On the other hand, a well sourced article on the history and significance of the Montreal mass transit system would be quite encyclopedic. Edison 19:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:50, 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 no consensus. The Community was divided between those who consider this to be a collection of information that lacks coherence and those who think that it should be kept or merged somewhere. I am unconvinced by the argument to merge into Kraken in popular culture since Kraken are mythical creatures, albeit with the giant squid implicated, whereas the giant squid is a real animal. Any merge proposals should take place as post-AfD editorial actions as should pursuing the lack of sources. TerriersFan 03:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giant squid in culture

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics stitched together with original research. This collection of any appearance of a giant squid (or collosal squid, or squid-that-is-not-identified-in-the-fiction as "giant," or creature that is vague and undescribed but someone decided that it must be a squid) tells us nothing about squid, nothing about the fiction from which the references are drawn, nothing about the relationahip between them (as there is none) and nothing about the real world. Oppose merge of any of the information to any other article on squid, giant, collosal or otherwise, as it is just as trivial in another article as it is in its own. Otto4711 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• This can safely be deleted because it is redundant to our articles in chief on Kraken and Kraken in popular culture; the Kraken is the usual name of a giant squid when it appears in literature as a sea monster. If anything should be merged, it should go there rather than to any article about the actual molluscs. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep or merge. I'm not sure that giant squids are always called Kraken. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete List of loosely associated topics, just like most of the other IPC articles Corpx 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Kraken in popular culture. SolidPlaid 17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 24.176.25.116 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:NOT#DIR + WP:OR = bad article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. I think it should be kept or at least merged with the Kracken page for I and other people I know have used it many a time to find movies,tv,etc that feature this beloved beast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Infamous Dr. Salvador (talk • contribs)
• Avast, to Davy Jones's Locker wi' the fearsome beastie. 'Tis a loose collection o' unsourced scuttlebutt, an' we've got lots of info in the related pages. Arr. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kraken in popular culture. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The material here is notable and sourceable. I see the people who think that the subject of a creative work is not a notable feature of it, or that having common themes or plot motive is a "loose association" are till at it. I think its about the strongest association there can be, and exactly what is meant by encyclopedic content and the purpose of a general encyclopedia. Kraken isnt really that good a merge--that article talks about purely mythological beings, not actual animals. DGG (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Giant squid are not the "subject" of the items included in this article. Giant squid are not the "theme" of these items and they are not the "plot motive." The things have no association with each other beyond "it's got a squid in it" and in many cases they don't even share that. Otto4711 15:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If it has a squid in it, there's a reason it has a squid in it. Creative works don't use content at random, they use it for the meaningful associations. If there's a few that don't belong, that becomes a question for editing, not deletion. if we deleted every article that had an item of questionable content, there wouldn't be a WP. Trying to judge articles of a particular type that way is exactly what I mean by trying to remove the whole content area from the encyclopedia--on the reason, ultimately, of IDONTLIKEIT.

But let's look at the ones I know about enough to say: For books, 1, 2, and 3, are major plot elements, all memorable & meant to be. There will certainly be references for any theme in Moby Dick. The Watcher is meant to evoke a squid, & there will be refs in the immense literature on Tolkien. for Dr No it's also a significant element. for 5, & 6 its the basis of the plot. 7 & 8 significant element also. 9 is relatively trivial, if I remember right. 10 I dont know the books, 11 is also trivial. 7/11 at least. At least 3 or 4 of the film ones are certainly significant also, and so on. DGG (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's got a squid in it, there's a reason it has a squid in it. And if a movie has a cell phone or a book has a taxi cab or a TV show has a blue sweater in it there's a reason why that cell phone or taxi cab or blue sweater is in it. That doesn't mean that the existence of the phone or cab or sweater serves to tie the movie or book or TV show to every other book or TV show or video game that also includes a cell phone or a taxi cab or a blue sweater. The assumption you're making, that the presence of a squid or squid-like thing evokes a deliberate and close association between the things, is original research by synthesis, not to mention POV-pushing. Otto4711 02:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

certainly, for a particular cell phone. But not for cell phones in general--if cell phones in general are used in movies, there are reasons. And if for some reason a particular cell phone did occur in dozens of movies , there would surely be an interesting reason. I don't know if there's an article yet, but the fact that almost all advertisements with personal computers have contained Macintosh computers is actually interesting and encyclopedic and sourceable. DGG (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• And again, your assumption that there must be an association between things because they share one feature or element in common has no basis in fact. Otto4711 13:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If the element is the significant use in a novel or film, yes. What do you think the study of literature or cinema consists of but the study in historical perspective of the themes and characters and techniques DGG (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the study of it on Wikipedia consists of articles that discuss independent secondary sources that are about the topic of the article. There appear to be no such sources that are about the subject of "Giant squid in culture" or the supposed automatic association between otherwise unrelated items that happen to have a squid in them. Otto4711 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean discuss the topic in the light of secondary sources, not discuss the sources. Just to clarify.DGG (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Kraken in popular culture and merge the contents. --Martin Wisse 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - yet another list of unrelated occurrences where a giant squid happens to appear, or be merely referenced. - fchd 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Kraken in popular culture; arguably, the resulting article should be renamed, to indicate that not all giant squids are explictly based on the mythical Kraken. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn topic, every animal that exists has been in "culture" one way or another, does not make for a notable topic and ultimately becomes trivia. Biggspowd 14:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The GS is a powerful symbol in popular culture and a strong sub-culture exists around it. I can see how the relationships between items might not makes sense to everyone but I assure you that they do to me and many many others. Perhaps the article could do better at explaining this, but after all these are artistic relationships so the best way to understand them is to see specific examples of how artists have used the symbol. As with all art it isn't going to make sense to everyone and that is fine. Personally, it has been a good exercise that this has been flagged for deletion because it has challenged me to think about why I find the symbol so compelling, and the list of references in this article so very interesting and useful. 20 August 2007

• Could you please post some links that discuss the "giant squid sub-culture"? Because I can't say as I'm too familiar with it. Otto4711 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sure thing. From my experience is it a strange mix of people who are fascinated by the biology on the one hand and on the other identify with the pop culture. These people also tend to be into They Might Be Giants if that helps. This page on Laughing Squid is a good example. It includes both links to experts in squid biology such as Steve O'Shea, as well as all kinds of pop culture references. I can't explain to you why these fit so well together in my mind, but they do. That's culture for you! Wicklonious 20 August 2007

• So then, nothing other than a blog. No actual reliable sources attesting to this supposed sub-culture. Otto4711 23:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• What would you consider to be a "reliable source"? I looks like more than a blog to me, but what do I know. Here's another one showing the community/sub-culture around squid. It is the Octopus News Magazine Online and also covers the range from biology to how cephalopos impact popular culture. Here's the culture forum. Maybe the problem here is that the Wikipedia artical needs to edited to better explain the impact of squid on culture. That doesn't mean it should be killed. Wicklonious 21 August 2007
• Independnt of the sub-culture the basic point is that squid are a symbol that have been used by artists in various ways. Wicklonious 21 August 2007

• So to bolster the blog you post a fansite. Please read WP:RS. These links you're providing do not meet that guideline and your argument here amounts to people like squid. Otto4711 21:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sources Please see [15] I'll be adding a few , but for the moment let me just quote from Google Scholar "

Kaleidoscopic Nuclear Images of the Fifties MJ Strada - The Journal of Popular Culture, 1986 - Blackwell Synergy... 188 Journal of Popular Culture ... In It Came From Beneath The Sea ( 1955), an irradiated giant squid-turned-carnivore terrorizes San Francisco, ripping apart the ... I think that shows that 1/ the general subject is considered notable and 2/at least some individual items are discussed in RSs. I assume you will now withdraw the AfD. I really dont know what more you could ask for. DGG (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Of course I'm not going to withdraw the AFD on the basis of the existence of a few articles that happen to have both "giant squid" and "popular culture" in them. I can pick any two phrases and plug them into Google and I'll get some hits. "Hitler" and "Pop-Tarts". "Bungee jumping" and "wonder woman". "hard boiled eggs" and "nuclear war". None of this and none of your so-called sources refute the basic premise of this nomination, which is that ther mere presence of a giant squid in something does not mean that the thing has any relation to anything else with a giant squid in it. You make this same mistake over and over and over again. "Existence" does not equal "relationship" and "stuff has squid in it" does not equal "squid in culture." Otto4711 22:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• And, considering that It Came from Beneath the Sea features an octopus and not a squid, I'd have to say that a "source" that can't get that basic fact right has some issues. Otto4711 23:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, a few sight-unseen sources do not suffice. --Eyrian 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Go read them. i did since yesterday. Even on a preliminary look, I note I did not include them merely on the supposition that the title was significant, but looked for quotes where the actual sentence liked them both in a substantial way. I'll be adding some other things from these articles, since they seem useful. Its a fairly frequently held journal. I do not know what you expect, even when the articles are presented you won't use them. And then you say the source has the facts wrong, and it might, so if there are other sources, just add them and improve the article further. We don't have to show that scholarly sources are right -- we just show that the subject is discussed in major journals. If the scholars discuss this and get it wrong, it's still notable. The standards you use are much too erudite to be useful at wikipedia. DGG (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge to Kraken in popular culture. Artw 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge / Redirect. Another extremely poorly-named article. Should have been "Giant squids in popular culture" or something on those lines if it should exist at all. In any case the Giant Squid, which does not go around wrecking pirate ships and such, but might attack a whale for food, is covered well in that article. The Kraken is the legendary monster that grabs hold of sailing ships and drags them under, as seen in the Pirates of the Carribean films and elsewhere. While the two may be similar-looking and real sightings of the one may have led to the mythology of the other, they are very distinct in terms of the "popular culture". The current article confuses the two, by showing a real Giant Squid carcass preserved at a museum, and then images of Krakens attacking ships. Clearly improper. Merge: any "useful" information in the article can be merged either to Giant Squid or Kraken or Kraken in popular culture (with cross-referencing links between them), and then redirect this fell beast to the latter. Then there is Gigantic octopus which is apparently a hypothetical creature yet to be discovered... --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

a good argument for redoing the group. I agree they should be redone and possibly rewritten. I don;t see though why you want to merge to Kraken when you agree they aren't Kraken. Obviously a good question to be discussed on the talk pages. Personally, I think the best solution is a merged Squid and Kraken in popular culture. Maybe Octopii as well, per Otto's information. DGG (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My point was there is really no such thing as a "Giant Squid in popular culture", by definition. If a thing is attacking yer fleet o' pirate ships, or ye olde ocean-going exploration vessels of the middle ages, or any other ships on the seven seas, or Hollywood actors named Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom under the thumping orders of one Davey Jones, and dragging them assunder or whatever, then it is, by definition, a Kraken, and the reader should be referred to Kraken in popular culture. Any useful information in this article that is not already resident elsewhere should be merged into one or more of the other related articles in the group. Again, this article should not, in theory, exist at all; but on the outside chance someone goes looking for it (or it is improperly mentioned and linked in other articles such as the Pirates of the Carribbean movies), then such intrepid voyagers should be gently sent (redirected) to the proper place(s). --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 03:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 20:57, 23 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. Walton^One 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republican Movement (Ireland)

Republican Movement (Ireland) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No content whatsoever a few links that is all this article contains BigDunc 15:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep but this needs sourcing for the claims and attribution of the notability of the phrase. --Dhartung | Talk 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unsourced and seems a somewhat arbitrary assignment of organisations excluding Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil for a start Kernel Saunters 16:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS. --Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete totaly unsourced.--padraig 19:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unsourced --Domer48 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - source, add and improve. WP:FIXIT. --Vintagekits 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The IRA (of any hue) is the military wing of the Republican Movement; Sinn Féin (or RSF or 32SC) is the political wing. This article is central to the relationship between these organisations. Expand and source. Scolaire 15:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I have done some editing, added sources and replaced the "NPOV" and "not verified" tags with an "expand" tag. Scolaire 22:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - unless there is already another umbrella article dealing with all the Republican organisations, this article is needed. If it is a bad article, it should be improved, not deleted. Peterkingiron 16:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- This is the only article that lists the completely different organisations within the one movement. Conypiece 20:39, 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 07:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best Worst Movie

Best Worst Movie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparently unfinished documentary film; no sources showing notability. NawlinWiki 15:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reviews, etc are found. I came up empty Corpx 16:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article provideds very little information and is poorly written (uncompleted parenthesis prhrase). I can't see how two sentences can sum up a movie. TheInfinityZero 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• I made some quick improvements, so I say keep if additional improvements can be made and references added. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The phrasing "The documentary will chronicle …" suggests that this film doesn't exist yet, and that's also what a Google search indicates. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Deor 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced, unverifiable, speculation, provides little information. Melsaran 15:15, 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. WP:SNOWBALL. Hemlock Martinis 06:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of books by title: 0-9

List of books by title: 0-9 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An attempt to maintain a list of all books with Wikipedia articles (over even more?) must obviously fail. If the list has any useful purpose, say for navigation, this would better be served by a category. On the other hand, if I know the title of a book, why not type it into the search bar?

I also nominate the other parts of this 27-page list:

• List of books by title: A (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: B (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: C (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: D (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: E (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: F (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: G (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: H (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: I (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: J (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: K (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: L (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: M (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: N (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: O (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: P (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: Q (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: R (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: S (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: T (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs):
• List of books by title: U (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: V (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: W (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: X (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: Y (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• List of books by title: Z (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Note: The previous nomination was procedurally closed because of joint nomination with other topics.
See also precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese books by title, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazilian books by title

--B. Wolterding 14:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - This is a category masquerading as an article. The books on this list share no connection whatsoever with each other than that their titles begin with the same letter. The list is horribly unmaintainable and will never, ever be comprehensive. Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a place for lists of loosely-associated topics. Delete all of these NOW! --Hnsampat 14:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All per WP:NOT#DIR, which specifically prohibits "Lists of ... loosely associated topics." And I agree with nom that these lists attempt to serve a purpose much better handled by categories. -- Satori Son 15:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All This isn't the Library of Congress card catalog. This is why we have categories, but there really shouldn't even be categories for the alphabetical entries. Acroterion _(talk) 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, this is a textbook case of what categories are for, not articles. Any attempt to catalogue every book, Wikipedia article or otherwise, is doomed to failure as this list is inherently unmaintainable. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the lot. I've racked my brains bu there is no way I can see that these serves a purpose, plus the maintenance element. Pedro |  Chat  15:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - WP is not a book index and listing every book ever published seems trivial and is a list of loosely associated topics Corpx 16:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ALL, per WP:NOT#DIR. This is what categories are for! Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - THis article appears as Listcruft to me. In addition, it appears a huge hassel to attempt to maintain and keep updated. TheInfinityZero 16:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. This is an loose list. Difficult to maintain with any degree of accuracy and the articles would become enormous (they're already really big). These articles also fall under a collection of internal links. Useight 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete all As mentioned above, WP is not a list/catalog/index/etc. It was well-intentioned, but it too difficult to maintain, and unnecessary. A Category page would be better for this, but even that would be difficult to maintain as well.
• Delete all Wikipedia is not a card catalog. This list is impossible to maintain. Comments for many others above are relevant. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ALL Dude, there are millions of books that have been created...all the lists cover only a fraction of it. It is simply unmaintainable.--PrestonH 20:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as per WP:NOT#DIR ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Ugh. Wasted Time R 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all Unmaintainable, hopelessly incomplete.Man It's So Loud In Here 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Move to Meta or Categories. I created all these pages (and added the first several hundred titles) four years ago when there was no finding aid to serve the purpose. This was before there were Categories to give users a sense of how many articles about books are in the WP database. This was before there was an alphabetical index of the articles in WP so that people who don't know how to spell the title correctly can browse to see if an article already exists. This was before Wikipedia: Notability (books) was written to explain that this was never intended to list every book written, only those notable enough for an article. I agree that they're not appropriate articles for the main namespace any more, but please move them to Meta, or a subpage of Wikiproject:Books, so that the members of Wikiproject:Books can work on assigning all the articles on this useful checklist to Categories. Thanks. GUllman 22:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, the list may have had a good purpose 4 years ago. But with Wikipedia having expanded at an enormous rate, it's about time to remove it, since it has become unmaintainable. You can of course have it moved to your user space (and then move it to anywhere you think it's reasonable). --B. Wolterding 15:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I can already see the writing on the wall, and have started moving all the pages to a subpage of Wikiproject Books before the vote is final. In fact, all of the literary lists can have a home there until they have been sorted into categories. Problem is, the hierarchy of the current categories stills need to be better organized. GUllman 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. JPG-GR 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, far too generic and would be much better maintained through categorization. Yamaguchi先生 04:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list(s). feydey 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all easier to use categories, I would think. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, unmaintainable lists. --musicpvm 04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)