Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. CitiCat ^♫ 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HedgeStreet

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with the same name, Hedgestreet (talk · contribs), with no other edits than related to Hedgestreet. This is a part of several Advertising pages added to the project including Hedgelet which resulted in a deletion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedgelet. Appears this is just one in a batch of WP:SPA Accounts used to promote Hedgestreet on Wikipedia Hu12 23:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
→ See also WP:SPAM Case: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Hedgestreet_http:.2F.2Fspam.hedgestreet.com
→ See also WP:COI Case: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Hedgestreet

• Keep The company itself seems pretty notable Corpx 07:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - vanity aside, clearly notable - a gluttony of third party sources. The Evil Spartan 17:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The issue is whether we can write a verifiable, neutral-point-of-view article on Systemshock; these two policies are fundamental to Wikipedia. To satisfy them, we need multiple, independent reliable sources (forums, blogs, and wikis generally don't count as reliable) that discuss the subject non-trivially. This is what notability refers to. Although it is clear that Systemshock is mentioned on independent sites, these are generally short references that don't establish notability. The lack of substantial third-party information needed for verifiability means that we cannot sustain an article on Systemshock that conforms to Wikipedia's core policies. — TKD::Talk 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Systemshock

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

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

A friend brough this article to my attention. Fails WP:WEB, Alexa rank is lower than 100k [1] Computerjoe's talk 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Useless for almost every english speeking person, also it certainly dosen't warrant an article being lower than 100k.--Kkrouni/Ккроунл/ΚκρΩυνι 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:BIAS. --User:Krator (t c) 23:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I took a look at the article and was surprised to see that it is about a forum with fewer than 2,000 registered members, which makes it very small beer imo. There is no assertation of notability and I cannot see why it is notable. The usual notability criteria apply here, it needs to have been covered by multiple, independent sources, but I do not see them. It does not seem to have won any awards or distinctions of any kind. In short, I cannot see that the subject meets WP criteria for an encyclopedic article but I'm going to hold off for a couple of days to see what I can find. --Malcolmxl5 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see now that it's an online community site with 2115 members of the forums. However, I can find no online evidence of notability. In fact, there are just ten ghits for Systemshock[2] with the only two relevant hits being to the website itself. I find no independent sources about the site. The Alexa ranking is low. With no evidence of notability provided and none that I can find, I afraid I have to lean towards delete. --Malcolmxl5 11:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Even though the forum only has 2,000 members, it might still be considered a notable forum in South Africa. Thus Weak Keep as per User:Krator --Darkstar 10:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is considered a notable forum in the South African online community with other forums such as NAG (nag.co.za) who refer users to systemshock for hardware and technical support advice. NAG is a popular South African gaming magazine published on a monthly basis in south africa. User:Howlinmadmurdoc 14:06 13 August 2007 (GMT) — Howlinmadmurdoc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  And do you have any conflict of interest for voting keep?

Computerjoe's talk 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Considering myself and another person created and wrote the wiki entry yes it is in my interest to defend it. I am a member of the SystemShock community but this wiki entry was created without the owners and administrators of SystemShock being notified. They were only told of its existance once we were happy with it. As mentioned earlier, the forum is notable in the South African online forum community. the MyADSL forums rank higher but SystemShock comes in 2nd with regards to user activity and traffic. As mentioned earlier SS has a reputation in the SA community for its hardware and overclocking support, New Age Gaming magazine refers its users to Systemshock for advice and support. User:Howlinmadmurdoc 18:24 13 August 2007 (GMT)

• Comment I question Computerjoe's stance on this. He is affiliated with the Vault9 group (www.vault9.net) which has a history of rivalry and clashes with the SystemShock owners. Whether his decision was influenced by the owners of Vault9 (I assume this is one of the friends he refers to) User:Howlinmadmurdoc 14:17 13 August 2007 (GMT)
• Comment Alexa is not a reliable source of information when it comes to website rankings. The site has been as high up as under 30 000 in the world. (Tracking Alexa Rank in 2005) It only generates the traffic from people who have the toolbar installed. The site is South African and as such not many people have the toolbar installed. I can very easily get the ranking under 50 000 again by just installing the toolbar on my machine. This is not a valid reason for deletion. I also question the validaty of this claim. Joe has obvious affiliations with vault9 in that blogmad and vault9 are owned by the same people. User:GuildWarsZA 15:58 13 August 2007 (GMT+2) — GuildWarsZA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Disclosure, following Howlingmadmurdoc's allegation: it was pointed out to me by a Vault9 staff member but I was not aware of a rivalry. I nominated the article for deletion as I would any other website with similar 'notability'. Computerjoe's talk 15:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment An assertation has been made that this is a "...notable forum in the South African online community..." but where are the multiple, reliable, third party sources that tells us that? --Malcolmxl5 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  Here are a few urls from the New Age Gaming Magazine forums. Gldm, one of the hardware reviewers for the magazine, refers users to SystemShock specifically if they are looking for hardware and technical support, you can view the post here. Miktar, the forum admin and magazine gaming editor, references SystemShock again in his post where he says, "If you are that dedicated to hardware, I really do suggest you sign up at System Shock, which is where all the NAG hardware writers such as Neo, Gldm and such hang out." You can view the post here. Here is another comment by Miktar regarding systemshock. He says the following: "It really is a well-established forum with lots of members and a lot of expertise. I think you may start to see where we're coming from in terms of not trying to compete in that online space - there is no point, especially not when System Shock does so well". You can read it here. I have one more link from the Xtremesystems Forums, a highly active and notable forum with 56,665 members. They referenced a review done by one of SystemShock's members. You can view the thread here. User:Howlinmadmurdoc 20:46 14 August 2007 (GMT)

That's helpful. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 22:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In my opinion there is a massive conflict of interest when it comes to this RfD. The fact that Joe is associated with both BlogMad and v9 should have invalidated this request from the start. There is just way too much evidence for this to be just a coincidence. I admit I don't know the policies that govern the day to day running of wikipedia, however, I can't believe there isn't something related to conflict of interests. Staff from one site should not be allowed to nominate "competitive" sites for deletion. Joe has not put forward a RfD since June, yet he happens to put through a RfD for our page on the same day that I mention it on the forums. He was also responsible for creating a vault9 page which has susequently been deleted. User:GuildWarsZA 23:05 14 August 2007 (GMT+2) — GuildWarsZA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

OK, let's put that to one side and concentrate on demonstrating notability. Look at the criteria at WP:WEB. Anything there? An award perhaps? --Malcolmxl5 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've never really been interested in awards. I did however put forward Guild Wars ZA as more of an experiment than anything else. It won an SA Web Award. Go to the site and do a search for Guild Wars ZA. Unfortunately I can't link directly to the search results. Although technically speaking not an award, Guild Wars ZA is also listed on the official Guild Wars website as a fan site. This entails being reviewed by ArenaNet's community team and is no small accomplishment. I will be putting through an application for an upgrade in status to Honored fan site in the next month or so. The site has also been mentioned numerous times in their weekly fan site news. User:GuildWarsZA 07:18 15 August 2007 (GMT+2)

That's helpful, thanks. I have flagged up this AfD with the members of the WikiProject South Africa and also WikiProject Computer science to get some opinion from people with a bit more knowledge in these areas. --Malcolmxl5 07:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been brough to the attention of WikiProject South Africa. --Malcolmxl5 07:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been brough to the attention of WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science. --Malcolmxl5 07:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 23:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the references in the articles are to other forums and directory listing sites, and I do not think they constitute notability Corpx 07:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There is no reference to directory listings. User:GuildWarsZA 12:24 18 August 2007 (GMT+2)

• I'd consider the "top 100 sites" a directory listing. Corpx 15:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep We were asked to prove notability in the South African market and I believe we have done so. NAG, as publishers of a computer magazine, acknowledge that SystemShock is the leading source of information in regards to hardware related discussions, with many of their own magazine staff visiting and contributing to the site as well as serving on our staff. I'd also like to point out that both SystemShock and Guild Wars ZA were mentioned in the June Edition of the NAG magazine. They were mentioned in a feature called 'Wocking Websites 3: The Search for Local Wockage'. User:GuildWarsZA 12:24 18 August 2007 (GMT+2) — GuildWarsZA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• One line mentions in a magazine etc is not enough to deem notability. Per WP:N, the article must be either about the site, or mention the site significantly to count towards notability Corpx 16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - no notability sourced. Being mentioned by a random editor of a gaming magazine is not enough.--Svetovid 20:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - SystemShock was referenced on South African technology site IOL Technology (Link to article). The website for a local cinema chain was hacked for a second time and IOL refered to SystemShock's coverage of the first hack. Does this qualify as notibility then? HowlinMadMurdoc 10:18, 23 August 2--7 (GMT)

  I doubt it. Is IOL even notable? Computerjoe's talk 13:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  They're only one of the largest media companies in South Africa who print multiple daily newspapers in and around South Africa. This probably isn't the right place for this but can an administrator please advise me where I may lay a formal complaint. GuildWarsZA 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  I'm more than happy to tell you where you may lay a complaint. Try WP:RFC. As for IOL, perhaps they are notable: event hough they lack a wiki article they are listed at IOL and have a reasonable Alexa rank (5000ish). Computerjoe's talk 16:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete in the absence of any independet sources establishing notability. Nuttah68 08:50, 24 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. No basis for nomination.. CitiCat ^♫ 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aspies For Freedom

Aspies For Freedom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I nominate this for deletion because there is bullying of aspies at Aspies For Freedom by their Joint founder Sorry, but this is nothing personal, I just think that it's best that this goes now due to Amy Nelson's bullying tactics that she employs against ANYONE that disagrees with her or some other thing that Amy thinks is right when in reality it is not, I don't want other aspies subject to it, I support the aims of AFF but not AFF themselved due to the way they treated numerous members who only wanted a safe place to go

feel free to discuss this, remember this is nothing personal against Amy Nelson, despite the grief she has caused to countless aspies, myself included--Pika Pikachu2005 23:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, no reason for deletion. The "bullying" sounds like it needs intervention by an admin. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, Intervention by admin is all well and good if it isn't the admin of said forum causing the bullying, however in this case it is the admin of Aspies For Freedom doing this, in turn causing numerous members to be forced out of the organisation Pika Pikachu2005 23:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• That's still not a reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:53, 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 delete. Singularity 06:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coaching Legacy of the American Football League

I'm not sure what this is, seems like some kind of timeline or something which is WP:NOT territory, I tempt to speedy it for lack of content but placing it here instead. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete lacks context. I think it is a coach x influenced coach y because he worked or played for him, who in turn influenced coach z. Basically, Six degrees of separation. Comes off as WP:OR, and does not show how this is notable. Resolute 23:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. I actually considered nominating this myself, but was going to give it time to develop. But that doesn't change my opinion for this AfD. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 01:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Its original research, and there is nothing to show that this is a notable concept. i ^said 01:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry, no. One could say the same about Miami University of Ohio. I agree, it's a "six degrees of separation" kind of thing, as described by Resolute. Mandsford 03:57, 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. MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Journal

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

This type of non-notable local paper is made fun of on The Simpsons as The Springfield Shopper. Speciate 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I was able to find several sources like this one, appears to be the major newspaper of Kankakee, for what that's worth. CitiCat ^♫ 00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)a
• Weak delete I can't read the entire article listed above, but it does not seem like it's coverage about the newspaper itself, but uses it as an example. I don't really think that qualifies as significant coverage. i ^said 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete major newspaper of a village is not notable in most cases. The article above doesn't talk to the specifics of what makes a newspaper notable--it talks about a minor safety violation. We don't write articles about even felons just because of the crime unless there is something really noteworthy, let alone things like this. (corporate or individual) DGG (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - Kankakee County, Illinois has a population of over 100,000, and the newspaper has a daily circulation of 26,000. Of course I subscribe to the New York Daily News, which has a circ of over 800K. Anyway, here are another couple of sources - [3][4]CitiCat ^♫ 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete as the article currently stands, in particular the total absence of any independent sources. If rewritten and referenced I will reconsider. Nuttah68 09:01, 24 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. If non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources turns up at a later date, it could be taken to deletion review to consider re-creation. MastCell ^Talk 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mandy Boursicot

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

Simple and obvious failure to meet WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 22:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite I don't like deleting articles for non-notability or failure to meet guidelines Pheonix15 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. In its current form this meets CSD A7, no attempt to establish notability. Couldn't find any reliable sources on a google search. If the article can be rewritten and reliably sourced, then maybe. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 23:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite This webpage has a preview on the artist's paintings. Moreover, a google search shows up quite a number of hits for this subject as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment While I don't put much faith in ghits when discussing AfDs, I will comment that I don't find the number particularly high. More to the point, the search doesn't indicate that the artist has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", as called for in WP:BIO. I'd argue that the link provided, a promo piece in a magazine devoted to the galleries of British Columbia, Alberta, Washington and Oregon, does not match this description. Victoriagirl 16:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and add sources. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete My vote recommendation. Victoriagirl 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello! Just two quick points or maybe even more like questions, but anyway, I think that your nomination sufficiently indicates that you "vote" to delete the article. Also, unless I'm mistaken, I thought we don't look at these as "votes"? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the note. It was my intention to clarify things. In my opinion, a nomination is not a vote or even a recommended course of action - rather a starting point for the discussion. While I realize that the nominator is nominating an an article for deletion, I have been involved in many AfD discussions in which the nominator has, eventually, decided to recommend that the the article under debate be kept... or rewritten... or merged. You are correct, of course, that I should not be using the word 'vote' (though I think this is quite common in AfD discussions) - the bolded words are really to be considered courses of action. So, again, in the interests of clarity, my recommendation is simple deletion. Victoriagirl 17:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Dear Victoriagirl, thank you for the reply and clarification. I'm still learning some of the finer aspects of AfDs (part of the reason why I entered the adopt-a-user program in which an admin "adopted" me) and your reply is helpful in that regard. Have an enjoyable afternoon! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - In my review I found a lot of hits, but they were all similar gallery hits for rather common stills paintings, posters, etc. Should we have articles on all artists? Maybe, but it seems like a standard of notability should be achieved prior entering an article; currently I don't think this artist has done that. I found no secondary sources that would identify this artist as such. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:01, 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.. CitiCat ^♫ 19:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telugu Tejam

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

Article is about a 'title' which google could not define, but it speaks more about a person (seems to be N. T. Rama Rao) whose article here doesn't even mention the word 'Telugu Tejam'. Google brings up nothing relating to this being a title either. Lastly, there seems to be a book written by "N.T.R" called Telugu Tejam, but that is certainly not what this article is about. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This seems like a WP:COATRACK article to me. This is apparently an actual award, but I don't see anything to suggest that this is a notable award. i ^said 02:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And the article does not even mention an award either. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - all this article needed was a little clean up and grammar fixes. It's a perfectly notable award like all other Indian awards on Wikipedia. It was even awarded to the famous film actor, director, producer, and politician N. T. Rama Rao. The nominator says that Google brings up nothing about the title, yes it does, I don't think you can speak the language that's why. The nominator also says that N. T. Rama Rao wrote a book entitled Telugu Tejam and that's 'certainly not what the article is about' - no, a book was written entitled Telugu Tejam and presented to Rama Rao as part of the award. -- Thruppence 11:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. You may be right, but I still think it pushes a bit of a POV. And it said nothing of an award in the article, but rather that it was a 'title'. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know about you, but when you confer a title to someone I would very much say that it is an award. Thruppence 21:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, a title of King is not an award. And the title/honor/award itself has nothing to show that it is a notable award. i ^said 21:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I is right. A title is in no way a reward. A 'title' can often be a negative thing; They gave him the title of 'coward' when he confessed he was scared of killing the spider. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

1) I didn't say 'reward' I said 'award'. 2) I didn't say the title itself was an award, but the bestowment or conferring was an award. Thruppence 11:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

True - I meant 'award'. And that is not necessarily true either. It is, in a very vague sense, but it was not even slightly indicated in this article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Poorly sourced, with more information about the awards recipient than what the award actually is. Cool Hand Luke 00:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with N. T. Rama Rao unless and until other examples are mentioned. JASpencer 14:57, 25 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 06:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Optical Express Challenge Cup

Optical Express Challenge Cup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article does not meet notability guidelines. The match was a friendly match that was given the ceremonial title of "Challenge Cup", and although a trophy was awarded, it is not recognised as a major tournament, nor is is likely to be competed for ever again. Furthermore, the article does not cite any sources. - PeeJay 22:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 22:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a pre-season friendly. ArtVandelay13 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There may have been a trophy awarded, but there is no evidence to suggest that it was anything more than a preseason friendly. --Scottmsg 23:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not an offically sanctioned competition and not notable otherwise. --Malcolmxl5 01:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete One-off preseason friendlies are not notable. Number 57 14:05, 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. Advertising, and info in other article anyway. ELIMINATORJR 23:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alturas (frequent flyer program)

It's a FF program for an airline - what is the notability in such a thing that it requires a seperate article? There is nothing novel about it, it does not represent an advance in FF scheme technology or anything that would make give it notability within the field. It requires a single line on the airline article page. Here's I'll write it." Alturas is the frequent flyer program for Santa Bárbara Airlines." What more need to be said? we are WP:NOT a business directory (there are quite a few of those articles knocking about - I think a few more AFDs are in order). Fredrick day 22:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Flying speedy delete as blatant advertising. Clarityfiend 05:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I tried to {{db-spam}} but someone else thought it "didn't look like spam". <shrug> --Fredrick day 09:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Core information transferred to Santa Barbara Airlines. No separate article needed for this service. --Moonriddengirl 20:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Rhymes

Book of Rhymes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Rumoured album by an artist whose own article was deleted for insufficient notability. WP:CRYSTAL. Same for the two rumoured singles. Paul Erik 22:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Come Back Home (Monkane song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Forever (Monkane song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prod was removed from all three articles by the same anon IP without explanation. --Paul Erik 22:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete non-notable as artist is nn Will ^(talk) 22:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  Under which criterion do you mean? I did not tag it for speedy delete because my understanding was that CSD A7 does not apply to albums. --Paul Erik 07:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If artist is non-notable, songs and albums are also nn. Precious Roy 16:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carina22 15:57, 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 as copyvio. Nothing has been done since the AfD was started. No prejudice to re-creation, of course. ELIMINATORJR 23:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air Force Combat Control

Air Force Combat Control (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is almost entirely copyright violation, copied from http://www.usafcct.com and http://www.specialtactics.com Ward3001 22:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. While it might be a rip of other sites content the subject of the article is notable and easily sourced. I'll add it to my list of stuff I want to rewrite and clean up. This means I might get around to it a few months. Take that how you will but a simple stub can be sourced with a single trip to a DoD or AF website (which hold no copyrights really) and with some rewording it will meet both WP:V and WP:N. NeoFreak 22:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that this article is in a rancid state and needs to be thoroughly cleaned out before it is in anything close to a good state. Nevertheless the topic appears to be encyclopedic and verifiable. I might try improving it a little myself .. if I can convince myself to find the time :) Please note that if no one (myself included) does improve it then it probably is safe to delete and just have someone re-create after the fact. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment isn't the correct procedure to bring this to WP:CV and follow the instructions there? (ie template:db-copyvio or template:copyvio) 70.55.85.118 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think both Afd and WP:CV are OK, but if nothing is done to the article soon it needs to be deleted. For legal reasons, Wikipedia should not have such blatant copyvio of an entire article sitting unfixed for months or, in this case, years. Ward3001 17:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and re-create without the copyvio. We cannot keep a copyvio article while improvements are pending. The lede paragraph is just a copy from the first source listed. DGG (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'll edit it within the next week. Can't promise it will be much better, but it won't be copyrighted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuckles5492 (talk • contribs) 18:56, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I have known only one "Air Force Ninja" in my 20+ years of govt service and they dont have the time and wont take the time to edit wikipedia. I vote "KEEP" and get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.36.19 (talk • contribs)

Fortunately, this is Wikipedia, and there are rules about copyright violation. You get over it. Ward3001 23:40, 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. John254 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Povratak na Kosovo

Povratak na Kosovo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable video game mod. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep

And yet very popular on thee balcans ... You can't say it's not natable just beacause you didn't hear for it ... A game like this would never get into USA because it is somewhat contoversal for USA audience who were not allowed to see Albanians on Kosovo as terrorists... SSJ 5

• Keep if the reviews are verified, I think it constitutes as significant coverage Corpx 07:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Only two established Wikipedians wished to keep this article, one of them weakly so. The other keep comments -- including a duplicate by an SPA -- are evidence of an effort to promote this company through Wikipedia, probably with an underlying conflict-of-interest. As DGG observes, if one were to prune the spammy content from the present draft, little text would remain. All of this evidence comprises a compelling case for deletion. Xoloz 15:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shoplet

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

I originally deleted this on the mixed grounds of no assertion of notability and being very much in the nature of advertising materials, given several of the temporarary, unecyclopedic information that is included. However, following discussion at my talk page, I'm persuaded that more people than the tagger and I should consider the case. I note that the three references all come from the same source. I do not agree with the notion that "Every industry deserves to have a darling and a hero" in some way gives a right to an article. I believe that there are serious conflicts of interests in the authorship also, given the nature of the message on my talk page. Splash - tk 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite - sufficient references available Addhoc 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you going to do that, or are we wanting to hold to an advert? Splash - tk 22:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep but if kept, delete all the spam. CitiCat ^♫ 23:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete there won't be anything left if we remove the advert, and it wont be notable in any event. If one subdivides things sufficiently, any company can be the fastest growing company in its niche. And I'm not sure that "fastest growing" is even notable, as against "largest.": This is a very minor player.DGG (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete; if any sources can be found to make this article non-spam, then it might be worth keeping, but not otherwise. — Coren ^(talk) 22:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite - Considering they have 5 GSA contracts (5 year long each) and sufficient verifiable references available Officeguru 1:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  What is a GSA contract, and how does that make them notable? — Coren ^(talk) 19:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  A General Services Administration contract, that is a supply contract to the US Government. Addhoc 20:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  Hm. I think consensus has already been pretty much established that notable customers does not make a business notable; but arguably long-term contracts to supply a major government do make one a "major player" as it were. I still think this is a case for deleting, and even if kept the article desperately needs to be rewritten, but that does bring the topic closer to notability, IMO. — Coren ^(talk) 21:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite Notability of a company should not be voted by us but by the industry that the company is part of. A good vote of condfidence is by publications of the industry. Clearly, this company has been reconginized 4 years in a row by OPI, the one and only magazine to offer coverage on this space. There is more than enough verifiable links to this publictions on the copmany. If you check copmete.com on this company you find that they get far more traffic than WB Mason, for example. Officeguru 02:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Again – thank you for your efforts with regard to Shoplet.com. The feedback from those other than yourself and the tagger show a sentiment for the inclusion of a Shoplet.com article upon an appropriate rewrite. There is enough notability and industry references to validate Shoplet.com. Below is a proposed rewrite that conforms to other approved articles for similarly situated parties to that of Shoplet.com. It is requested that this rewrite be approved and that an article for Shoplet.com be authorized.

Proposed Rewrite:

Shoplet.com is an on-line e-market place whose core competency is the sale of office and office related products, and competes against the large brick and mortar retailers such as Staples, Office Max, and WB Mason. Shoplet.com was launched in 1994, and maintains its corporate offices in Silicon Alley, New York. Since its inception, Shoplet.com has broadened its product offering to cover over 200,000 products covering office supplies, office furniture, ink and toner supplies, paper supplies and printing services. In March 2004, Shoplet.com expanded its operations to include servicing the public sector when it received its first Federal GSA supply contract. Today Shoplet.com is the holder of 5 Federal GSA supply contracts (GS-35F-0736P (70 Information Technology); GS-07F-0091T (84 Surveillance Systems); GS-02F-0141P (75 Office Products); GS-07F-5601R (73 Cleaning & Maintenance Products); and GS-28F-0015T (71 Furniture)). Shoplet.com currently serves the entire United States and Puerto Rico though its web of approximately 140 distribution and fulfillment facilities strategically located nation wide. Shoplet.com’s distribution and service network encompasses an operation of 120 people. OPI, the office products industry publication, named Shoplet.com as the emerging office supply store of the year and fastest growing company in its sector in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Shoplet.com is also a premier benefactor and sponsor of the City of Hope Foundation whose mission is the prevention and cure of cancer and other life threatening diseases. This affiliation and philanthropic effort is due in large part to Shoplet.com’s founder and CEO, Tony Ellison, a former Goldman Sachs investment banker. Nymonsoon 13:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable, verifiable secondary sources to establish notability. Argument of notability in niche publications is not convincing, as no matter how niche they are, they must be verified. A single source is not sufficient. WP:CORP states clearly A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Furthermore, the rewrite is worse. Unverified claims, in advertspeak, are made: Shoplet.com currently serves the entire United States and Puerto Rico though its web of approximately 140 distribution and fulfillment facilities strategically located nation wide. "web"? "strategically located"? What is wikipedia now, prweb.com? Thanks!--Cerejota 00:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Cerejota.Clearly fails WP:CorpHarlowraman 07:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.. CitiCat ^♫ 02:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob's Discount Furniture

Bob's Discount Furniture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a regional furniture store. Doesn't show how the company is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (companies), and there doesn't seem to be any coverage of this chain in reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep [5] [6] seems like enough mild notability for an article. i ^said 02:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, Article is deficient, but subject may still be notable. Bob's is prominent in its region and holds a sought-after status within its industry according to trade publication Furniture Today. A Google search produces a few WP:RS-quality news stories. • Gene93k 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:RS I think. No external sources that seem reliable. I'd point out that this source [7] (cited above) is just a press release from a logistics company saying 'Bob has chosen us to be their logistics vendor'. Given the fact that there seems to be a new release for each customer the company acquires, I think the source can be discounted. bfigura ^(talk) 04:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pick a small enough region, and any company is notable within in. We are not a Connecticut business directory. 33rd in the US is where it stands among its peers, and that is not notable.DGG (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - what we need are multiple reliable sources underscoring notability and they are absent. Nothing about why the company is notable. BlueValour 12:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The company has several mentions on boston.com, they are notable because of their massive presence on tv and radio. If we take them off now, believe me, we will be putting them back on in a year or two. Has stores located in every New England state except Vermont, New York and New Jersey too, I wouldn't call that a "small region." Some refs: "http://www.conntact.com/archive_index/archive_pages/1839_Business_New_Haven.html" , "http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/04/24/the_z_team/" , "http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-nujavatop0809.artaug09,0,5073024.column" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.191.27 (talk • contribs)
• Keep cant watch a Red Sox game on TV without seeing at least one ad for Bob's Discount Furniture. A regional fixture in advertising.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:35, 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 Speedy Delete. CitiCat ^♫ 01:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opus (magazine)

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

This is the second nomination; the first nomination resulted in a speedy delete. Student newspapers have no inherent notability and need the requisite multiple reliable references to meet WP:N. This one doesn't. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 20:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed the nomination page. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a repost and so tagged. Jauerback 21:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Jauerback. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 22:16, 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. Closing early per Godwin's law. Friday (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Shit (Group)

Non notable, fails WP:BAND, disputed CSD, the user who has created this has given no sources. The sunder king 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Asserts no notability; offers no references at all. The google test may not be the best, but it's all I can come up with, and I've got nothing relevant on Maverick Sourcerer "Hot Shit" --Moonriddengirl 21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- I am trying to find the sources for the article at the moment. The group are well known on the Brooklyn underground hip hop circuit and are notable. --Brooklyn Soldier 21:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "Well known on the Brooklyn underground hip hop circuit" is not one of the notability criteria, and there do not appear to be any reliable sources for information on this band. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- my point is that they are notable in brooklyn and new york for their hip hop tracks, but maybe not the whole world --Brooklyn Soldier 21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• The way we gauge notability on Wikipedia is by sources. We don't just take your word for it. (Nothing against you- we don't take any editor's word for it.) If the music press is giving them significant coverage, we can maybe have an article. If not, we can't. My town has lots of local bands too, but this doesn't mean they belong in an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- But they are more than a local band, many expect them to become a huge group in the future,thats why i started the article --Brooklyn Soldier 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Show me where Rolling Stone or Entertainment Weekly says they expect them to be huge, and we can talk. Until there are sources, all we have are your assurances that "many" expect them to become notable. And that's not enough. Friday (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- but why would i start the article if they were just another "local band" --Brooklyn Soldier 21:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - recreate if and when they become huge. --Huon 21:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- why cant we just keep the article and when they become huge we can add to the page and give more refs? --Brooklyn Soldier 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Information in Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources. Friday (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- u guy's r fuckin' nazi's --Brooklyn Soldier 21:59, 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 both. If more sources can be produced, the article on CUrio can be recreated through deletion review, and this AfD closure should not bar the re-creation of the CUrio article if further evidence of notability turns up at a later date. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curio (magazine)

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

No notability established by way of multiple reliable sources as required by WP:N. Delete view. Also nominated Bootleg (magazine). Bridgeplayer 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I see nothing notable about this. i ^said 02:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Major uni newspapers such as this are notable, being a breeding ground for new journalist/writing talent. This is recognised in the decision of major libraries to keep them archived. (see article discussion) 124.170.126.247 04:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it I think its notable. alexis+kate=? 09:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• I moved it to CUrio by the way. The U is in caps because it is the uni's initials. alexis+kate=? 09:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both - it is not sufficient for the creator to make generalised statements as above. What we need is to know why they are notable since being a student newspaper is not notable in itself and more is needed than simply being published. In order to establish notability what is required are reliable references that underscore such notability, and to meet WP:V, and they are absent. BlueValour 12:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral on Bootleg (magazine) - not clear if it still exists, no library record of it. May be another "Blitz". But I don't know anything about Ballarat U. Joestella 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep on CUrio. It's real, it is referenced in a national newspaper and the national library, and student newspapers have colourful histories that tie into Australia's cultural and journalistic story. I would like to see this article grow into something like that rather than allow a premature AfD to prevent it being recreated (which seems to have happened on Opus (magazine)). Joestella 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Bootleg (magazine). The reference indicates that it has been published but there are no WP:RSs to indicate that it has any notability . A bad failure of WP:N. TerriersFan 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete CUrio. The reference to CUrio is a passing mention. What is needed is a reliable source that comments on the magazine and there are none here. Being held in the national library conveys no notability since many national libraries have a policy of holding all publications in their country. The British Library holds copies of every book published in the UK but that doesn't confer notability. TerriersFan 00:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable. Student papers, like all things student related, have to establish a noability beyound the campus. Nuttah68 09:28, 24 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. ELIMINATORJR 23:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip

NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is either an inappropriate commercial article, or creationist harassment, or a bad joke. Filll 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Merge Copyvio from linked page, advertising. NCSE is actually an anti-creationism organization. Either way, this is spam. Acroterion _(talk) 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Not copyright violoation, not advertising. Nobody said that the NCSE was not an anti-creationism organization. Read the article. Happy Couple 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC) — Happy Couple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  I read it. Rafts go down the Colorado on a daily basis, carrying all manner of folk. What is notable about a raft-borne lecture on creationism/evolution/geology? Acroterion _(talk) 21:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment It was written about in a peer reviwed scientific journal and over at Panda's Thumb, a reliable source per consensus. Happy Couple 21:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  My concern isn't WP:VERIFIABILITY - I agree the trip exists: it's WP:NOTABILITY, which is established by multiple independent sources. Linking back to NCSE and Panda's Thumb doesn't help there. I note that somebody's found a NYT reference, which is better. I endorse Wesley R. Elsberry's proposal to put this in the NCSE article - it's just a raft trip with lectures, which doesn't warrant its own encyclopedia article. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (Project Steve) isn't a valid argument. Acroterion _(talk) 22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  Acroterion, I think that this is a move in a game to put the "Project Steve" page up for deletion, not to urge retention of this one because "Project Steve" has a page. --Wesley R. Elsberry 23:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  I see a lot of activity around that article, with editors warming up COI arguments and so on, but it isn't directly germane to the topic at hand. Acroterion _(talk) 01:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  It's just directly germane to whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was intended as the form of argument by "Happy Couple". Seems to me that the actual case is the obverse, that an existing article should go away because of an AfD of another article. I don't know if there is a cool WikiName for that. --Wesley R. Elsberry 03:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works both ways. If Project Steve is proposed as an AfD, the discussion will stand on its own, and I doubt we will lack for participants. Until then, the subject is rafting. We can't debate a hypothetical AfD. Acroterion _(talk) 03:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"We can't debate a hypothetical AfD." True enough. But we can examine what "Happy Couple" is actually doing with (1) creating an unnecessary article (2) making slurs concerning the organization associated with the content of the unnecessary article and (3) making sure to diminish an established article about a notable topic in several places, including the actual AfD for the article he himself created. You noted the invocation of Project Steve before, but it seemed to me that your evaluation of its significance was not correct. Rather than going another round with the, "But we're not discussing Project Steve" thing, we could just agree to disagree on what "Happy Couple"'s unsubtle allusions to it mean. --Wesley R. Elsberry 04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is only that Project Steve has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, per Wikipedia policy. Acroterion _(talk) 18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete This blongs on wikisatireapedia. •Jim62sch• 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Speedy Merge Meets notability (pandas thumb). May need a little work. Happy Couple 21:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)— Happy Couple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Explain. •Jim62sch• 21:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

    Comment This is a part of the ongoing culture wars, and is notable, and could (if any concerns were expressed) be made encyclopdiac. Happy Couple 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails to establish encyclopedic value. -- Ec5618 21:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment More references all the time. Could you identify the specific criteria you think the article fails to meet? This trip is notable, has been occuring at least since 2003. Help work on the article. Happy Couple 21:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'll write an article on my last vacation next. Jauerback 21:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Unlike a typical vacation, this trip has been mentioned in peer reviewed scientific journal, as well as Panda's thumb. Happy Couple 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. ornis (t) 21:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Merge I don't think anyone desperately needs to know this. The NCSE can so its own advertising. -- WolfieInu 21:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment LOL, The NCSE uses wikipedia for this. See this wikiscanner. Happy Couple 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I understand there's been some talk about this lately. Don't know if it's true, but be that as it may, I'll let an advertisement stay on WP over my dead body. ... No, not literally! Don't kill me! :) WolfieInu 22:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Glad you have a sense of humor. This article is at least as notable as Project Steve, as it has promotional and critique, was mentioned in a scientific journal, as well as Panda's thumb. No talkorigins that I can find, unfortunately. Not really an advertisement. It is interesting, akin to other stunts pulled in the culture wars. Happy Couple 22:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I don't see a particular need for a separate article. This could be noted in the NCSE article and link to an NCSE page on a past trip. For those who are arguing about notability, there was notice of the 2005 trip in the New York Times. --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Now, concerning that crack about the notability of Project Steve, one should consider the public notice of Project Steve. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and as spam. Ford MF 22:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Alas, it has no sources to establish notability - the Panda's Thumb reference does not satisfy WP:RS in my book. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am not arguing for keeping the article as a separate article, but I'd be interested in hearing about when the New York Times became a non-notable source. --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• The NYT article is about the Grand Canyon and its role in the creationism/evolution debate, it is not about the NCSE trip. At best the NCSE raft trip recieves incidental mention which is certainly not sufficient to establish notability. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to disagree, but the Jodi Wilgoren NYT article I linked is essentially a split-it-down-the-middle report on two rafting groups, one an antievolutionist group guided by Tom Vail, and the other the NCSE-sponsored trip. Calling half the article "incidental mention" doesn't strike me as an accurate summary. --Wesley R. Elsberry 23:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "It is interesting, akin to other stunts pulled in the culture wars." Happy Couple's comment is ironic, given that the page history shows that it was Happy Couple's stunt. I call troll. --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Good call, Acroterion. I support a merge with the main NCSE article, as the material does deserve to be mentioned somewhere - not enough for its own article, though -- WolfieInu 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Geez, I think the world of the NCSE, but this is non-notable (is that a word?) cruft. And if comes from Panda's Thumb, then it's probably some creationist cruft too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that NCSE did not create the article. The article was created by "Happy Couple". Look at "Happy Couple"'s comments about NCSE on this page. I see a pattern here; "Happy Couple" is not trying to do NCSE any favors. Failure to recognize that it's a setup will make "Happy Couple" that much happier. --Wesley R. Elsberry 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam. This is simply an advert see here. BlueValour 12:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This article was created expressly to provoke supporters of evolution by a creationist troll, who is probably a sock puppet, and probably has been banned here repeatedly before. Making such trivial articles is an effort to cast the anti-creationists in a bad light, and make fun of them. If we keep it, it makes pro-scientists look silly and petty. If we get rid of it, this sock puppet will attempt to claim we should get rid of Project Steve on the same basis. It is just an effort to make us jump through a creationist's hoops and mock us all. I say delete all his articles, and block this troll.

The topic of this article is not particularly noteworthy, even though it was published in the New York Times, as noted above. It is not particularly relevant. It is not really encyclopedic. Sure Wikipedia can include this level of fine detail, but should it? Should we have a separate article on every field trip you can go on hosted by a creationist? Every type of lecture given by a park ranger in every national park in the world? Every individual park ranger and their specialties? Surely at some point this starts to reach the point of vanishing returns, even if Dr. Scott is a notable figure in this case. To leave this as a real article is to cater to a creationist troll. It is more akin to advertising, which we should attempt to minimize in Wikipedia, particularly in this instance.--Filll 13:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Whatever the motives of the creator of this article, the material is not noteworthy enough for its own article. If WP went through all information with this fine a sieve, the sheer volume of information would become unmanageable (some argue that it already is!). If the material must be here, then let's move it to Eugenie C. Scott or somewhere. -- WolfieInu 12:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable activity. While giving the outward appearance of an advertisement, it does seem to written as to have a subtle air of making those involved appear hypocritical and illogical, for example that the lady presenting the creatonist view is "a leading critic of creationism" according to her article. Yep, nothing ensures a lively debate quite like everybody being on the same side. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve - I think in order to keep, some editor(s) should commit to making this an encyclopedic article. At the moment it is mainly a direct quotation of the ironic tone of ncseweb.org — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:33, 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 and redirect. --Haemo 01:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flaws and All

Flaws and All (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No references, sources... no content at all, really. Just a Beyoncé album track. Suggest delete or merge to album article. - eo 20:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, lest every song by every artist gets a page. Speciate 22:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect' To the album. There is nothing notable about this song on its own. i ^said 02:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete', this song has no ntotablity to speak of. It's not even a single. 70.123.134.68 07:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per i. Precious Roy 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no individual notability; it wasn't released as a single and no significant media coverage. What we need to know is why it is notable and such a reason is absent. BlueValour 12:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per BlueValour Beorhtric 16:57, 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 redirect to B'Day. There are not sufficient sources in the article to verify the information or prove its notability. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creole (song)

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

No references or sources, seems to be all speculation. Just a Beyoncé album track that seems to have suffered from "Unreleasement". Suggest delete or merge to album article. - eo 20:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Song is not notable if no one will ever hear it. Speciate 22:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to B'Day; no sources to confer notability, which shouldn't be established by unsourced speculation. I doubt any sources can be found to establish notability, given that it's a bonus track that hasn't been released as a single and is only available in some countries — although if anyone can prove me wrong, by all means... Extraordinary Machine 12:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• The only thing i could see that might justify this article might be this vinyl wich includes this song and "lost yo mind" but i believe this was only a promo vinyl not worth notability. i also highly doubt that this song was supposed to be released as the second single if it's only a japanese bonus track. Ratizi1 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to B'Day. No sourcing to demonstrate notability. TerriersFan 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dgip

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

Seems to be the author's own research and ideas. Although references are given, not notable enough for an article, methinks. Chris 20:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete, obvious conflict of interest as article author is User:Cyang3, while the term was coined by C. Yang. According to the article itself, all references given (except the "coining" one) predate the invention of Dgip. --Huon 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The references are to verify statements in the article, but they do not assert notability of the topic. i ^said 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this looks more like a promotional essay for those ideas than an encyclopaedia article. No sources that establish notability, this is probably original research. Melsaran 03:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism with insufficient evidence of notability or that it can be amplified into a full article. TerriersFan 00:19, 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 No consensus, defaulting to Keep and Clean Up. ELIMINATORJR 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality in women's sports

Homosexuality in women's sports (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In summary, its a poorly cited, poorly referenced, orphaned, POV-riddled, speculation-filled, un-encyclopedic article that almost qualified as an essay or rant that shows no signs of improvement. I cannot believe this hasn't been nominated before. Cornell Rockey 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject LGBT - Deletion Discussions — Becksguy 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. 90% of the article is bullhocky, as nom correctly points out. It might even have been a term paper that was copy and pasted. However, the topic is a legitimate topic, and if all those references at the bottom of the page are valid, then there should be enough scholarly material out there to write a perfectly fine article. My preferred method for dealing with this article is just removing 90% of the prose that is unsourced, but I won't mourn for the article if it gets deleted. hateless 21:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as it is an unverified mess, but it inherently notable. This ought to be cross-listed with WikiProject LGBT. Bearian 22:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A major problem withthe article is that it is missing in-text citations, making the information very dificult to verify. Still, that being said, the major problem here is not verifiability, but original research. What the article does is take existing information and splices (or perhaps synhesizes) it together to present encourage a particular interpretation, and present an analysis of it as fact. If the subject is indeed notable then a complete rewrite would be in order, but I think the information would be much better served as a small section in Women's sports than as it's own article. Calgary 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It appears this is more of a novel synthesis rather than an actual topic. There are a number of sources listed but I'm unable to assess them as they aren't linked, nor are they cited directly. Happy to change my mind if some evidence that this subject has been given substantial treatment in reliable secondary sources, though. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - the topic of homosexuality in sports, and by extension homosexuality in women's sports, is clearly notable. The article needs a lot of work but there is material there to work with. Otto4711 02:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm beginning see a pattern emerging in AfD's for articles whose names fit the pattern "POV/pejorative/controversial-phenomenon in notable-subject-area". Is this part of some sinister uber-scheme to establish a precedent? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 05:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I am a bit undecided on this one (yes, I know everyone who knows me is probably shocked to not see an outright keep, but I have to maintain objectivity and honesty). Anyway, the topic seems potentially notable, but I wonder to what extent the article is original research? In any case, a number of references are provided, so perhaps the sub-sections of the article can be expanded to better show what others have written on the topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this article is at an essay level, with lots of synthesis and original research. Corpx 07:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a notable topic and, as we're reminded on the front page, wikipedia articles often start out in poor shape. There are references and sources and it will only improve with this exposure at AfD. Nick mallory 08:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article isn't in good shape, but it is an important topic. I would suggest deleting it and starting anew except for the sources provided at the end of the article- which, of course, need to be integrated into the prose itself. I say we keep it, and keep that rewrite tag on top until a lot of improvement is made. -- Kicking222 14:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is plenty of material to use in regular editing to improve this article. A quick book search yields well over a dozen books [8] and a google scholar search has over a dozen articles and studies [9] . Benjiboi 17:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment I will withdraw the nomination if this article can actually be fixed by people who actually know how to cite sources and can make it have a point. however, if it isn't fixed in 3 months, I will bring it back for another AfD. Cornell Rockey 15:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment per WP:AFD - "If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Your promise to re-nominate should instead channel that energy into improving the article itself. Please do not re-abuse the AfD process which is suppose to be reserved for hopeless articles. Benjiboi 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Ace of Swords 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic topic, though it badly needs improvement. As usual, Needs improvement justifies improving it, but doesn't justify deletion. --Ace of Swords 20:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent community

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

Long essay-style article that fails WP:N and is completely WP:OR. Jauerback 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also a slight case of WP:COI, judging by the only contributer to the article. Jauerback 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Is it even notable that the Intelligent Community Forum gave Jimmy Wales an award? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntelligentCommunity (talk • contribs) — IntelligentCommunity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Response Regardless of whether or not it's notable, it's irrelevant to the article. Calgary 22:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as practically unsourced. Giving Jimbo Wales an award doesn't make the ICF notable, and even if the Forum were notable, that wouldn't make the concept so. Google Scholar gives some 500 hits, but those I checked seemed to mean something different. --Huon 22:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and this is an essay which appears to consist mainly of original thought. It has 4 references in 4000 words, and as far as I can see, three of them are not actually about the concept itself, but background information for the essay. Even if notability were established, this would have to be rewritten from scratch to become an encyclopaedia article. A shame as the author has obviously put a lot of work into it, and it may have merit as an essay, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Iain99 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete For the length of the article the number/detail of the cited references is strongly lacking. Also the article is very heavily interwoven with analysis, in a manner that is expressly covered by WP:OR as being inappropriate for Wikipedia. Calgary 22:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I think it consists of OR and the article gives undue weight to the subject. A mention elsewhere may be warranted but not an entire article. Brusegadi 22:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. the wub "?!" 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of video game collector and limited editions

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

List of video game collector and limited editions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pure listcruft; furthermore, this list does not add anything to Wikipedia. What collector's editions there are in the world is completely insignificant information. MessedRocker (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree: it's listcruft. I believe it's fancruft and just clutter as well. As I've stated before: in comparison DVDs have just as much (if not more) limited editions it seems, that doesn't justify a list of the more notable ones. RobJ1981 20:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In order for something to qualify as listcruft, it must be unnecessary and irrelevent to the original topic. This is far from unnecessary or irrelevent. It's just as "irrelevent" as a list of all the budget games. Xizer 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it is fairly standard faire to release a collector/limited/special edition of a video game these days, so there really isn't much to this list that doesn't fail WP:NOT. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete MR, as he frequently does, has this one nailed on the head- this is just listcruft. Obviously, a game's article should talk about its limited edition releases, but we don't need a big collection of them. -- Kicking222 14:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - people can find this info in shops or games' articles or websites.--Svetovid 20:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC) The actual reason for deletion: collection of loosely associated topics.--Svetovid 12:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - We have articles listing Greatest Hits, Player's Choice, or Platinum Hits games. That information can also be found in shops, games' articles, and websites. Why is a list of collector's editions being singled out? This is very useful information to have a collection of it together. Someone hunting all video games that have had collector's editions released would find this to be very useful. I'd say this probably deserves to be kept more than the discount titles lists, because new games are constantly being added to the Player's Choice/Greatest Hits/whatever libraries. Xizer 02:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • Then all those should be deleted as well. MessedRocker (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but "greatest hits" lists serve a purpose, as people actually look for cheaper games. Who in the hell specifically looks for special editions of games? And what does "new games are constantly being added to the [greatest hits] libraries have to do with anything? As if companies have all of a sudden stopped making limited editions? I don't understand your logic here. -- Kicking222 04:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I don't know, perhaps one of the over 7,000 members at this website dedicated to collecting video games might have some passing interest in the subject?: http://www.digitpress.com/forum/index.php Xizer 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment to closing administrator (and, ostensibly, anyone else) Xizer has specifically advertised this AfD [10] on the site s/he mentions above- though, in his/her defense, the mention does not say "vote to keep this article!", but rather asks if the article is useful and if the info can be found in other places. Also note that Nindanjoe below has zero other contributions to Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

With that said, I'm a huge gamer, and I've never- in my entire life- heard of specifically collecting limited editons of games. Collecting retro and classic gams, sure. But limited editions? There's no forum on that site that is devoted to limited editions. I honestly don't know what that one site (of the many, many, many sites devoted to classic gaming) have to do with this. -- Kicking222 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article deletions should be based on its policies, not on the opinion of some neckbeard trolling Wikipedia. Despite the fact that thousands of people collect limited edition video games (and this is from MY personal experience), that is not what is up for debate here. The debate is whether the article is listcruft. Unlike some of the article examples given on the listcruft policy page such as "List of people who have ears," this article actually has useful information. Have you ever wondered why I am defending this article so valiantly? Maybe it's because I collect limited edition video games. There you go! You just heard of someone in your whole life who does collected limited edition video games. Xizer 02:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I am not part of the game collecting crowd; however, I understand enough of the collecting desire to know that having a list of special and limited editions allows for easy look up. Having the list at Wikipedia will also allow adding and confirmation along with a potential time line for future reference. The argument of the information being found in shops, games' articles, and websites is valid yet is missing something. Shops won't always have the information one may desire. Websites die off. The common element with both of those is time. Eventually the shops won't know what special edition you're talking about. The official websites will eventually change or die off, along with the information. Although not a special edition, a few official sites for old adventure games no longer exist. The Quest for Glory series, for example. Games' articles, I don't know the legal area about re-posting these articles (magazines, scans or otherwise), but as long as they are always available, then you can find the information. You may even find them being used as a source for this Wikipedia article, if it stays. It should already be known about the importance of information and having them available now rather than desperately hunting fohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_video_game_collector_and_limited_editions&action=editr that exact information in the future when it's harder to find. Nindanjoe 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) — Nindanjoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong keep per Nindanjoe and Xizer. As a member of WikiProject Video games, please keep this useful and well-referenced article concerning major, notable and verifiable examples of games. Thank you.--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• To the people advocating the keeping of this article - can you give a reason that is grounded in policy on why this article should be kept? MessedRocker (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you give a reason that is grounded in policy on why this article should be deleted? 74.71.216.11 05:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • This article fails Wikipedia:Notability, specifically the part requiring "significant coverage" of the subject. Information on collector's/special editions best belong in the respective articles about the games themselves; they do not warrant a list on Wikipedia. MessedRocker (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There is also Wikipedia:Listcruft, which is neither a policy nor a guideline but is relevant to this issue (as well as the issue of notability in general). MessedRocker (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I already explained why this doesn't qualify as "listcruft," as noted above. Do you honestly think this is on the same level as a list of people who have ears? Why should this information be kept to the specific articles themselves? I guess a List of PlayStation games doesn't deserve to have an article either. After all, where's the "significant coverage?" The point is to have a list of games that are collector's editions instead of having to look at every single game article on Wikipedia to determine whether it has a collector's edition of it or not. Is that not the reason why there is a list of games article for each system? So that one has a list of games that have that attribute (i.e. being a PlayStation game)? Xizer 08:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Saying it does doesn't make it so. There is nothing in those that is saying what you want to stretch them to say. 74.71.216.11 07:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically every game that released an expansion/sequeal is going to have a "special edition" that bundles both. There is nothing more special about this. I remember when HL2 first came out, there was a special (or gold) edition, which gave you a tshirt with the box. Special editions, really are not special. Corpx 05:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• 'Actually if you'd read the article, you wouldnt have to try and remember what that release was about, you'd have a sourced entry describing no less than 6 differences between it and the regular edition. Deusfaux 13:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Why do some people insist on trying to rid wikipedia of this article? It has passed previous AfDs as recently as May this year, and has only improved and become a better article since each and every time. The information provided in each entry is NOT found in the individual games' articles on wikipedia (or any other singular place on the net), and even if it were, a single page list is a far more efficient means of providing that info to users. The notability of CE and LE's could be understood by seeing the numerous articles that are written on major high traffics sites like IGN - sometimes multiple articles by the same website about the same CE (see a SINGLE title; Bioshock, as a recent example here[11], here[12], and here[13] - which you can double for all the 360 version pages). Nominator fails to make any reasonable argument that hasnt already been made in the past, furthermore, declarations of "fancruft" is not an argument at all. This is also NOT just a list of what CE's are out there, but far more importantly, what makes them a CE (their contents, etc). Comparisons to DVDs are irrelevant because we are not talking about DVD CEs, we are talking about video game CEs, which are a significantly different thing. Deusfaux 12:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  If this article can pass AfD when it had no references, and has since been nearly 100% referenced (and then inline referenced), surely there is less and less reason to delete it as we go on. Deusfaux 12:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Deusfaux 12:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note Here is a link to the last nomination in May 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer and video game collector and limited editions (fourth nomination) Deusfaux 12:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. Deusfaux 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but create Videogames with a Special Edition Category, or something, and then just include all the games in the category. Fin©™ 13:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• And then you wouldnt know anything about the CEs themselves, where this article serves to inform. Deusfaux 13:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, If this was a catagory we would lose a lot of editions that don't have their own pages along with the definition of the namesake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 041744 (talk • contribs) 13:18, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
• Keep as the list is very well referenced and is very limited in scope (read the first few paragraphs). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Suitable references would be to published articles discussing this as a topic.This is a totally unencyclopedic list, about as unsuitable as List of books published in gift editions would be. There do exist some good lists, but this is not among them. Any info could go with the individual articles and I suppose its there already. DGG (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. In response to Deusfax's comment: special edition DVD and video games are very similar. Many video games have collector (or special, or limited editions) as do movies. This is an acceptable comparision, even if you refuse to accept it. RobJ1981 05:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Some video games have a CE as defined, but the vast MAJORITY of movies do. That is the vast and appreciable difference, even if you refuse to accept it.Deusfaux 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable et verifiable. Abeg92contribs 05:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This is not a popularity vote. You are supposed to explain how it's "Notable". Also, verifiability was never questioned.--Svetovid 12:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unmaintainable list... this will eventually wind up 300 pages long if you include every collector/limited edition ever released. Better as a category. Nuke the list.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• See my next comment above. You are making claims not based in reality. As defined by the scope of the article, it is 99% complete. This list would only wind up 300 pages long, 300 years from now. Please stop presuming video game CE's are anywhere near the level of movie or dvd CE's. Also please read the defintion of one and understand how limited and focused the article is. Deusfaux 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Claims not based on reality? That comment was rude, and just not needed. Not everyone must agree with you: the ones that do, shouldn't be attacked like that. Just because video games have less editions than DVDs isn't a reason to justify this video game list. RobJ1981 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out Deusfaux is posting on many user's talk pages to comment at this AFD. I see this as canvassing: which is unacceptable. I posted on his talk page about this. RobJ1981 11:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Rude? The suggestion of "300 pages long" was not a matter of opinion on which reasonable people can agree to disagree; it's a statement of fact which is so far beyond the actual situation that it needs to be called out as wildly inaccurate. Powers ^T 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, yet again. This list certainly hasn't become less encyclopedic since the last time. Let's go over the points again. 1) It's not suitable as a category because this list has annotation which is essential to the encyclopedic value. 2) This is not an indiscriminate collection of information; it's tightly focused, organized, referenced, and encyclopedic. 3) While it's true a general encyclopedia would not usually include this level of detail on this topic, a specialized video game encyclopedia probably would; Wikipedia, being not paper, is often both general and specialized. 4) This list compiles specific information from numerous separate articles into one location; restricting this information to the individual game articles reduces the encyclopedic value of the information by making it almost impossible to compare entries to each other. Powers ^T 14:39, 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 05:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paganistic Gromanism

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

A new (or is that "old as time"?) religion with no reliable sources. Was tagged for speedy deletion, but I don't think CSD A7 can really be applied to religions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - reliability/truthfulness of article?? a Google search gives nothing useful Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax or made up one day. --Huon 22:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Huon. A prophet called "SilentBobisus"? Please. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Huon. "SilentBobisus"! Classic. Isn't there a WikiProject that collects gag articles? ichor}mosquito{ 06:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MX (rapper)

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

British rap artist. I couldn't find any sources, so either fails notability or is a hoax. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless better sources are found Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete probable hoax. The only MX mentioned on Billboard has an entirely different discography and was never in the Hot 100.--Sethacus 20:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, not notable, possible hoax. i ^said 02:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced - almost certain hoax . Nigel Ish 16:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skiatism

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

Psychological approach. Unreferenced so presume original research or at least non-notable. Already deleted once as expired prod. -- RHaworth 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nineteen g-hits total, including the Wikipedia article and Samuel Ochieng's Wikipedia user page. Most of the the other hits were, in some way, about Samuel Ochieng, who apparently developed the approach. Since the original author of this article is User:Samuelochie, I'd suggest there may also be WP:COI issues. --Evb-wiki 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to be original research Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meatwagon

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

Pure dicdef which is unlikely to grow into any form of article. Article claims it is a recently adopted slang term. Even if this is the case (as a police officer I've never heard it and there are no references to back it up) it's hardly encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp 18:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - probably uncommon or rarely used slang, a Google search does not find anything Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. In US it has been a nickname for an ambulance, as noted, for decades. Not very notable. Bearian 22:05, 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, then move the town article to where this article was. Singularity 05:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avola

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

Delete expired prod about a Sicilian noble family that has been around for a while but unsourced for over a year as well; many ghits for Avola but there is a town in Sicily of that name either from which this family took its name or to which it was bestowed. Either way, some think that any noble family is notable, so here it is for the community to decide. Carlossuarez46 18:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Redoing this as a redirect to Avola (SR), the town would be OK too. Carlossuarez46 18:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested. I can't find any verification. This is one of a number of obscure articles created in 2004 by 80.58.53.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 80.58.53.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), many of which remain unverified. Gordonofcartoon 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested - could not find anything about the family, found lots about the town. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete altogether. I see no evidence that this is a traditional name of a family as distinct from a town. Most of the ghits seem to be for a wine. DGG (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or possibly move Avola (SR) to Avola per above. Addhoc 09:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• {{prod}} poster voting Delete and Redirect Delete content from current version of Avola and replace it with content from Avola (SR) and redirect Avola (SR) to Avola. As stated by DGG above there is indication that Avola is a traditional name of a family as distinct from a town, which leaves nothing to merge. Jeepday (talk) 14:37, 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bear Creek School

The Bear Creek School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

expired prod on otherwise non-notable school, but schools come to afd not delete by prod, so here it is. Carlossuarez46 18:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - seems almost like a school website to me - "The Bear Creek School is committed to classical education and to integrating the Christian faith in all subjects, extracurriculars, and across all grade levels." Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment Of course schools or anything else can be deleted by prod if nobody objects. The reviewing admin is however supposed to confirm that the reason for deletion is appropriate. If he has doubts, then certainly he should bring them to AfD, but there's no need to otherwise. Absolutely no need to bring them here.We have enough problems with the contested school deletions here without having to do the uncontested ones. It is speedy where schools can't be deleted. DGG (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of independent sources. Plus, I second DGG's comments; this shouldn't have been brought here in the first place. --Huon 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is written in a very biased/inappropriate style, but more importantly, there is no established notability. Calgary 23:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 00:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on the following:

• First, I agree with the nominator that generally schools (particularly schools which cover grades 9-12) should generally be brought to AfD rather than PRODded. The introductory paragraph at WP:PROD clearly states "This process should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia ..." Can anyone really say that a high school is ever an "uncontroversial deletion candidate"? PROD is not meant to cover these types of articles; that is what AfD is for.
• I do think that this school appears to be "notable". The introductory paragraph at WP:N clearly states The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". This is a small, very conservative Christian school that appears to be in contrast to the larger public schools in the area such as Redmond High School or Lake Washington High School. Although being "worthy of notice" is a very subjective test, I feel that a private high school is "worthy of notice" simply because it is an alternative to the public schools, particularly since I believe that most or all public high schools will likely have articles at some point.
• Even by the more objective test that many editors apply, I think this school is "worthy of notice" because its athletes have earned notability for the school. One student won the Class 1A/B state girls golf tournament in 2005 [14] and another student just last week took sixth place in the women's pair final at the FISA World Rowing Junior Championships in Beijing [15].
• WP:V requires that the information must be verifiable, not verified. While we all want to see articles have better sources, lack of sources is not a valid reason for deleting an article. If some of the material in the article is questionable and lacks sources, then that material should be deleted, not the article.
• Admittedly the article needs to be improved, but it is much better than a stub and much better than many articles on many topics. The quality of the article, however, is not grounds for deleting the article. WP:SOFIXIT. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - It is one thing to keep big 4A/5A schools, whose sporting and other events are regularly covered by media, but I do not find that's the case for a small private school Corpx 07:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable high school. Postlebury 10:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Of course if it's controversial it would come here--I didn't mean otherwise, but not all school deletions actually are. This one quite reasonably is. It's an unusually rigorous and classical curriculum for a Christian high school, or perhaps any US high school, and is explained in the article. Needs sources for that , though. I would be perfectly agreeable to a proposition that there be a guideline that all secondary schools be considered as notable on the grounds that enough information could be found and sourced if the work were done, and its the subject that should be notable, if it were also agreed that this did not extend to primary and intermediate schools. That isnt yet the current policy, though, but these debates are not worth the work they involve. DGG (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep article makes assertions of notability, but would benefit greatly from the addition of context and sources (and some pruning of content). Alansohn 03:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree that it was wise to bring this to AFD because this is controversial; but I think PROD can be used for some school articles in some cases. It is seems to an unresolved issue with school articles on if they should be deleted on what they are, or what they in theory could be. There are loads and loads of school articles in a poor state on Wikipedia, with only so many editors to fix them. That is why I believe in "for-now" mergers into wider scope articles articles in some cases - it usually results in no loss of content, with no AFD been necessary in the first place. In other cases if a school article can not be easily merged and is notable for its own article I say keep it as a stub - unless it is an attack page, copyright infringement or does little more than state the schools existence. In this particular case a merge is possible with Redmond, Washington - though I do not think that would be appropriate in this case. This article is well established and it just needs to be cut down with trivial information removed. A search seems to suggest this school is verifiable, (though be-aware that there is more than one Bear Creek School) so I think a keep is appropriate. Camaron1 | Chris 11:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no notability (per, more or less, the points raised by DS1953 which all tend to the trivial in my view). Schools do not default to notability, and nothing here asserts why this school merits encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 18:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - there is no notability to this private school. The Puget Sound region has many, many private schools; a few of them are exceptional. The academic program or the athletic program (something I do not find or desire to be notable in education below the collegiate level). It is a private school and it is a Christian school, but those are hardly notable characteristics for a school. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - includes a high school, which is significant, and has a notable and unusal academic programme. Also notable athletics performances. Needs cleaning up and sourcing but those are matters for tagging and post-AfD action. TerriersFan 15:40, 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Smithies

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

expired prod, another English footballer who has yet to appear in a big league game despite being on a big league team Carlossuarez46 18:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No first team appearance so fails WP:BIO. The player has not been given a squad number so it doesn't look like he will play any time in the near future; undelete when he makes first team appearance. Dave101→talk  19:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - he does have a squad number, 35. [16] ugen64 13:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak keep I would support keeping this player on the basis that he has a squad number and youth international appearances. Armand Traore and others were kept in this AFD on the same grounds. Dave101→talk  08:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - hasn't done anything notable as of yet, rewrite if/when he appears in a big league game Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems a promising youngster but does not meet WP:BIO at this time as he has not yet played in a fully professional league. Bring the article back if and when he does. --Malcolmxl5 01:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Has not played a game in a fully-professional league. Number 57 14:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I happened to see him play just this morning, in a U-17 World Cup match broadcast on Eurosport. So in a way I think he is notable (not much, though). — Luxic 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately you won't get much support for this line of thinking, since the current line of thought is that any player who has not made a first-team appearance, no matter how notable he might be in real life, is not notable enough for Wikipedia. ;-) ugen64 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per Malcolmxl5. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 22:47, 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. Kurykh 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychofreud

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

Delete contested prod; doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 18:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Can find no reliable sources that meet WP:N dissolve^talk 18:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, no good sources Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 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. John254 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Pakman

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

Possibly non-notable biography, contested prod. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the request to restore after prod came from the subject. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now, he has done something notable - possibly youngest "nationally syndicated radio personality in the country" Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep [17] seems like an coverage that makes him notable. i ^said 02:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arfeen Khan

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

Contested prod. I left a note on the talk page about notability two months ago, but nothing yet. I don't see how he meets WP:BIO, so delete. Chaser - T 17:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - currently fails WP:BIO Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of secondary sources to establish notability. --Huon 22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per lack of sources Corpx 07:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete no establishment of any notability, fails WP:CORP. Cheers, WilyD 15:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buffalo International Film Festival

Buffalo International Film Festival (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability beyond its own "temporary prototype" web-site and associated blogs & self-publicity sites. No evidence from Google that it has ever held an event. Fails WP:CORP. -- MightyWarrior 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:CORP Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an active organization and has held events which are noted on the website.

The "temporary prototype website" I happen to know is because the website is being re-designed and the organization doesnt' want to be embarrassed.

The board of the organization is extremely prominent and includes Nobel Prize winners, Academy Award Winners and other.

Whether Google says anything about an event is not as important as local press which has covered it extensively.

The organization is currently supporting many extremely important Theater Preservation and History efforts in the city of Buffalo, New York and is forming aliances with other organizations there as an adjunct to the actual festival. This is noted on the website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movieresearch (talk • contribs) 22:22, 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. The nominator failed to get support for deletion. Any merge proposal is a matter for post-AfD editorial consensus. TerriersFan 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dana Cowin

Non notable, fails WP:BLP due to a lack of multiple non-trivial sources about a living subject. Burntsauce 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and source properly. 15,000 Google results, listed as author of Food & Wine's annual cookbooks for the past several years as well as one apparent standalone, and consulted as an expert by the media on food and wine issues, such as this interview on CNN, this piece from CBS News, this AP article (there on tampabay.com)... and, well, anyone who gets 226 Google News Archive hits is probably going to meet WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• merge to Food & Wine Magazine. One event biographie. - Nabla 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge being quoted from her official position does not grant notability Corpx 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess it depends on how we look at her. Were she an academic, I think she'd pass easily - that guideline suggests that someone repeatedly quoted in newspapers and magazines would pass the key criteria. Not sure how to approach an editor of notable books, however. I recall a lengthy discussion about another journalist in which his overall body of work swung things towards the keep side. (Then he was zapped via PROD, apparently, but the discussion is more what I'm pointing out.) Someone who edits a major international magazine would seem to carry a substantial amount of notability, to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• I really wouldnt say that's a major international magazine, at least by readership numbers Corpx 01:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, my error on the 'international' thing - I thought they were wider distributed. But, circulation of more than 900,000 is pretty big. *shrugs* Tony Fox (arf!) 03:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Food & Wine Magazine, not really all that notable beyond this one magazine. RFerreira 07:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Editor in chief of a major magazine in its field is notable, even by itself (and she was previously executive editor of an even more widely known magazine). DGG (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge to both then. In one mention that she formerly was at xxx; in the other that she latter moved to yyy. Both articles would be enriched, and we don't need a pseudo-biography for that. - Nabla 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment AfD template was removed on August 16 by 76.16.109.18 with no edit summary. I have just now restored it. I have no opinion on the AfD itself. --Finngall ^talk 05:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Moved this from the log of the 14th to the 17th, to compensate. Nabla 13:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Singularity 05:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Delfouneso

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

expired prod, another player for a big team that hasn't yet played the prod-er also questioned whether the tournament in which he played is real or a hoax. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete hasn't done anything notable as of yet, rewrite if/when he appears in a big league game Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I'm totally unfamiliar with UK soccer/football, so I don't know what teams are professional in the context that they are given automatic notability. It says he plays for Aston Villa in the Premier League, which both say they are professional teams, so if it is true, I assume that he is given the automatic notability of professional sports players. i ^said 02:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• He is not a professional, he plays for the club's under-17 team, which is not considered notable under current WP guidelines. Delete until such time as he plays for the first team or at worst is added to the first team squad list ChrisTheDude 09:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also I don't mean this in an attacking sense, but why !vote in an AfD where, by your own admission, you're "totally unfamiliar" with the subject matter....? ChrisTheDude 09:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice. When he plays for Villa's first team, he's notable. The Rambling Man 08:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Has not played a game in a fully-professional league. Number 57 09:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is a bit premature as the subject has yet to make an appearance in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. Bring it back if and when he does. --Malcolmxl5 20:21, 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hope Is Emo

Hope Is Emo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable podcast. No references or sources. Also seems more an episode guide than an encyclopedia article. Miremare 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Podcasts need to have outside sources. Speciate 22:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Cut it errr... It gets a few mentions in reliable sources, but not there does not really appear to be enough material to do a decent article on it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of coverage from significant sources Corpx 07:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is notable, I guarantee it. If I have a chance this weekend, I'll prove it with some sources and come back with a keep vote to back my statement up. Commenting only to attempt to avoid a speedy WP:SNOW delete + close... spazure (contribs) 07:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• CommentI'd like to say keep a cut down version, but no outside reliable sources have really shown this to be notable. If noone comes up with any external sources (i.e. news coverage) than count this as delete.--ZayZayEM 03:50, 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. Singularity 05:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Krystian Pearce

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

another expired prod on a British footballer who is one a big team but has never played a Premiership game. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No apparent notability. Jakew 21:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability yet. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO: Has not played in a fully-professional league. Number 57 09:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Please would editors prodding or AfDing articles try to remember that it's courteous to let the creator of the article know the procedure is ongoing. Thanks, Struway2 | Talk 09:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (who created this article as User:Struway)
• Delete as he has not played in a fully-professional league per WP:BIO. Do bring the article back if he does. --Malcolmxl5 20:25, 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. Singularity 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Annerson

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

another expired prod for an English footballer on a big team but awaiting his debut. Carlossuarez46 17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no apparent notability. Jakew 21:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability yet. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO: Has not played in a fully-professional league. Number 57 09:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as he has not yet palyed in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. Do bring the article back if he does. --Malcolmxl5 20:27, 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. Singularity 04:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rui Fonte

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

Expired prod, but is a player on Arsenal's books which I gather is a reserve position, does that fulfill notability? I'll let the community decide. Carlossuarez46 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete has some coverage, but no apparent notability per WP:N. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. ugen64 07:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not a first-team squad member, hasn't even made the bench, fails WP:BIO at this point in time. Qwghlm 13:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO: Has not played in a fully-professional league. Number 57 09:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as he has not yet played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. Do bring the article back if and when he does. --Malcolmxl5 20:29, 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. Arguments based on WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E were weighted. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frankie Silvestri

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

This subject does not seem notable enough to warrant an article ElKevbo 17:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - I see little historic notability for documenting people accused/convicted of crimes Corpx 17:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BLP1E. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this is notable and has been covered in many media outlets. This is a huge story in Florida and is discussed in newspapers such as:
  • http://www.alligator.org/edit/news/issues/stories/040329homicide.html
  • http://www.sptimes.com/2004/03/29/State/Police_seeking_suspec.shtml
  • http://tallahassee.com/legacy/special/blogs/2007/05/man-gets-20-years-in-uf-students-death.html
  • http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/jan/21/suspect_pleads_guilty_2004_slaying_uf_student/
  • http://www.local6.com/news/2957163/detail.html
  • http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040402/world.htm

How you guys can call this "not notable" is beyond me... what would be gained by deleting this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morthanley (talk • contribs) 20:39, August 17, 2007

• Not saying its not notable, but there's just no historic notability in documenting every crime out there Corpx 07:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete possibly reinstate when the stories come abut the conviction & the sentencing. DGG (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Millions of crimes happen every day, the majority (including this) have no notability, just newsworthiness. Nuttah68 09:31, 24 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. MastCell ^Talk 02:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melanie Slade

Nominated for the fact that she has no other notability other her press attention for dating a footballer, thereofre it is not a good reason to have a page in this site. If this decision is to keep, then we all may as well allow articles for all other WaGs, wether notable or not. Dr Tobias Funke 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into the other article. Person really has no claim to fame except dating somebody famous Corpx 17:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per nom & Corpx. Jakew 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Notability is not transferable. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Theo Walcott as per above.--JForget 01:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. No need to merge either as it really isn't relevant to an article about Theo Walcott. John Hayes - On Vacation^talk 16:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per John Hayes. She clearly lacks sufficient notability of her own. While it's possible that people's who noteability arises from association with someone else who is noteable can become noteable in their own right, e.g. Kate Middleton, this isn't the case for Melanie yet. Nil Einne 19:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, also need to point out that the page was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user called User:Robertsteadman as this block log proves —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallicash (talk • contribs) 22:43, August 18, 2007
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per John Hayes. Number 57 09:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Theo Walcott. Subject is a very credible search term, and much of her fame comes from him. There is currently nothing about Slade on Walcott's article. CJPargeter 09:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable -- BanRay 09:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the case what if they split up, then that might be a CSD and unless they are famous for something else, WaGs aren't entitles to have their own page. Homo Saffien 18:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable and it's the creation of a banned user. --Malcolmxl5 20:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per John Hayes. aLii 12:47, 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 01:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous Scorpios

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

Should be easy delete. A new list of poeple that are Scorpios... I believe similar categories/lists were deleted in the past. Renata 16:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Adendum: found the category discussion. See here for snowballing delete. Can't find discussions on lists, but I am positive it came up somewhere before. Renata 17:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR - the criterion for inclusion is subjective (who decides who is 'famous'?). I was just considering nominating this myself, but Renata beat me to it ;) EyeSerene^TALK 16:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The "not a directory" argument has merit. Supporting keeping the list, however, would be Wiki is not paper. That said, I am not expressing any opinion vis-à-vis those two arguments, but rather point out that if it is deleted, there is a section in the Scorpio article for such people here. Since that section is small (and so long as it stays such), my opinion is thus merge and redirect to that section. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete List of loosely associated items. WP is not paper is not really a valid argument, because it can always be countered with the equally vague statement - "WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information". Grouping people based on their astrological signs is an extremely loose inclusion criteria Corpx 17:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- categorizing people by their astrological sign is a very loose criterion. Heck, I could put myself on List of famous Pisceans if I wanted... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Personally I think that grouping people this way is stupid. but many people do so classify themselves and others think it important. It's hardly a loose criterion for anyone whose birthday is known. DGG (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. A list that encompasses approximately 1/12 of the human race based on a coincidence of birth date is an indiscriminate directory. Otto4711 21:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. This is even too big to be a category. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I can see why this list was created - looks like someone forked it out of Scorpio (astrology) in an attempt to clean that article up. Nevertheless, categorizing people by some arbitrary time period isn't really necessary, either. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The list is incomplete and non maintainable and better suited for a category.--JForget 01:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wow, a list of people born between October 21 and November 20, or something like that. This could have at least included some bullshit about how "Scorpios" are more like than 11/12ths of the population to be decisive leaders or benevolent artists. Mandsford 04:01, 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 redirect to Groklaw. Singularity 04:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maureen O'Gara

Maureen O'Gara (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. Flunks WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E; attack page seems to violate WP:BLP, and once non-notable criticism (sourced mostly from blogs) has been stripped, nothing left. Merge with Groklaw or Pamela Jones seems best, since the controversy is the only issue discussed on the page. Prod removed with only reason stated "take it to AFD". THF 16:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. No reason to merge with other article(s) since none of the content is essential enough to be of encyclopedic interest. --Bwiki 21:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP, and WP:BLP1E. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Groklaw. O'Gara is already discussed in adequate detail on that page. JulesH 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. As mentioned, topic is already covered in sufficient detail elsewhere. Cool Hand Luke 23:55, 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 Redirected to Dream Team (TV series). ELIMINATORJR 13:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Martin

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

The lead says he's a fictional footballer, but the article writes as if he's real, and there are no references. Shalom ^Hello 15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm still not sure who Daniel Martin is (there's a footballer name Dan Martin), but it's likely that the article is written in in-universe style. @pple 16:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V, and WP:RS. Could also be considered a WP:HOAX. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a hoax. Dream Team is a notable TV series. As I noted above, the article may be written in in-universe perspective, so it makes the readers confused with fiction and reality. However, it badly needs sources. @pple 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite to meet standards. This is a character in Dream Team, a notable TV show. Darksun 16:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fictional person with no real world coverage. Just being a character on a TV show is not automatically notable. Corpx 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Dream Team (TV series) or a list of Dream Team characters, unless reliable secondary sources can be found discussing the character. Note that I've got a fairly liberal interpretation of what constitute reliable secondary sources: any books on the series which discuss the character, or magazine articles in which the actor who plays the character or the series' writers or producers discuss the character would suffice. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logansport, IN Junior Chamber (Jaycees)

Logansport, IN Junior Chamber (Jaycees) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Clearly not notable...reference link directs to a page that is still under construction. If it becomes notable we can always allow a recreation if suitable refs are located.--MONGO 15:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ORG. Local chapters of national organizations are generally unnotable. --Dhartung | Talk 15:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG. Local chapters are not notable.Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Singularity 04:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David zonshine

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

Nonnotable person, 1,000 ghits. His band "American Eyes" is not on Wikipedia (for good reason), nor is his group "Courage to Refuse." Shalom ^Hello 15:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N, and WP:BIO. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per notability guidelines. -- MightyWarrior 17:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:NN, fails to meet WP:BIO, and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 19:23, 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 delete. There is no numerical consensus, but the strength of the respective arguments, based on applicable policy, is determinative. After meaningless comments like "very legitimate list" are dismissed, the WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO concerns, which are grounded in policy, outweigh the fewer opinions that British Chinese are a notable population group. That is undisputed, but does not really address the aforementioned concerns that this list is not an appropriate way for an encyclopedia to categorise notable members of that community. (This closure overturns an earlier non-admin closure; see bottom.) Sandstein 06:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of British Chinese people

List of British Chinese people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Similar previous AFD. There are about 198 countries in the world last I checked. If we create full "List of X people in Country Y" articles for all groups of people in each country, that's 39,006 articles. WP:BIAS states that we can't use the argument "Country X is more significant that Country Z, so Country Z doesn't deserve an article". I posted a query about this in the article's talk page, but got no response. An argument that Britain contains a significant population of Chinese people might be floated, but I'm sure that British Nigerians and Italian Chinese feel their population is significant as well. Lastly, the article is bait for redlinks that clearly have notability issues. I'll nominate other similar articles as I find them or they are pointed out. - Richfife 15:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people - Richfife 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Could however be served as a category. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The Chinese are the third largest visible minority in the UK. But I agree there are notability problems with some of the names in the article. LDHan 16:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Per the nomination, making arguments that say "Country A deserves an article and country B doesn't because country A is bigger" is POV and leads to WP:BIAS. Also, saying that a group deserves a small list of significant members simply because it is large doesn't quite follow. Why should a famous British Mongolian receive no coverage because he's a member of a smaller population? - Richfife 17:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - "Chinese" is a designated ethnic category on the British census, which is an objective signifier that they are a notable ethnic group (and not just people from a single country as nominator makes out to be, see Chinese diaspora for more), It would be highly inconsistent to remove them and keep the lists of Asian and Afro-Caribbean people as well. If nominator wishes to remove every kind of this list then do so en masse, but do not single out a specific group, especially a census-designated one. Qwghlm 17:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless of their route to Britain, the defining point of the article is that people are ultimately from China. The ethnic group is therefore tied to that single country. All descendents of all countries can be categorized as ethnic groups in the same way. As far as removing the other articles, I'll put them up when I get the chance: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I saw this one when patrolling recent changes, so here we are. Nothing more complicated than that. As I mentioned above, an ethnic group being large doesn't apply as an argument that they should have an article about their most famous members. - Richfife 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll put them up when I get the chance - what is stopping you from nominating them right now, out of interest? An AfD takes comparatively little time. Besides, my point was not that the British Chinese are a "large" ethnic group (quite subjective), but an official census designation (fairly objective), and you have failed to answer this in any satisfactory way. Qwghlm 00:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Adding an actual link would have helped, but I'll track down the ones you mentioned. As far as the existence of a check box on a census form goes, we need more to go on. - Richfife 04:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Takes very little Googling to find out, actually - the UK National Statistics office discusses the ethnic-related results of the 2001 census here and a sample form can be downloaded here (PDF) - it's on page six. Qwghlm 12:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
          • The form has a number of checkboxes plus a place to fill in a respondents actual country of origin if none of the checkboxes apply. The checkboxes represent the creator of the form's opinion of which countries are most common while allowing room for any other country. It's not intended to place China into a separate category, it's simply a convenience. - Richfife 16:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
            • The form was not designed in that way on a whim of the designer nor for "convenience" - it is an official classification by the UK Office of National Statistics and the form accurately reflects this. Why do you not feel this is sufficient condition? and why are you so reluctant to not nominate any other such lists for deletion? I take that second question back, after seeing your further AfD Qwghlm 17:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I just did a scan, apparently there are 58 pages of Lists of American people by ethnic or national origins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_American_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin. I am not sure if you are realistically going to nominate all these pages. It is clear the "Lists of X people in Country Y" has a clear need in Wiki and a Mass AFD is not the way forward Chineseartlover 19:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • As an addendum - there is no single country of "China" - nor has there ever really been, especially in the view of people like myself, who are British and of Hong Kong Chinese descent. None of my ancestors have ever lived in or been citizens of the modern nation state of the People's Republic of China (which is what I presume what you mean by the term). There is, on the other hand, a more general Chinese civilisation that peoples of Chinese descent consider themselves as belonging to and that is why I stress it is an ethnic grouping, not a national one, so to talk of "countries" with respect to Chinese people is totally missing the point. Qwghlm 01:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
      • This is true of almost every pairing of countries in the world. There are people of Peruvian descent descended from ancestors that never lived in the modern state of Peru currently in Canada, ethnic Libyans in France, ethnic Mexicans in Australia. The N Squared problem still exists. - Richfife 04:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia so the N-squared problem isn't really a massive concern - we have room for it. If you dislike the idea of categorisation of people in this way then fair enough, but the practicality of it is not an issue. Qwghlm 12:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think its over categorization to make lists of people based on intersection of races. Corpx 17:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep THis needs to be discussed at the portal level. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure restricting the article entirely to discussion within a portal is a good idea. The article is part of the whole of Wikipedia, even if it's sublinked to the portal. - Richfife 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I strongly urge that all articles with that support this trivial balkanization of individual countries is worthless; there is no notability and racial heritiage, in an of itself, is meaningless. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete as a meaningless WP:NOT#DIR of names (the same goes for all such articles). What are the inclusion criteria? Chinese parent(s)? Grandparent(s)? A Chinese-sounding name?... EyeSerene^TALK 19:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Convert to category, then delete as a mere list not providing any meaningful context beyond a list of names. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Categorize (if not already done) I doubt that this is a meaningless list, but I think it would be more suitable for a category as ObiterDicta explained above.--JForget 01:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Though I sympathize with the nominator's misgivings, there are similar lists of Chinese-Americans, Chinese-Canadians, Chinese residents of China, etc., and I don't like the idea of unintentionally opening the way for an "ethnic cleansing" of Wikipedia. Mandsford 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ethnic cleansing is a severe overstatement of the facts. Each of these groups has articles dedicated to them. - Richfife 04:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as extreme overcategorisation. Bigdaddy1981 06:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a category not an article.--Svetovid 20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Not all names are organise as Catergories EG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_MPs:_A is a list and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_for_English_constituencies_2005- . Why is it more a problem if people organise a list of names according to their race than say their common achievements or talents? See examples here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Contemporary_Christian_music_artists. Should this list page be change into Categories too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_characters_in_Pirates_of_the_Caribbean Chineseartlover 09:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Questionable sources should only be used in their article. Ethnicity should only be in its own article. ---^DarkTea© 08:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: it could be a category, but not an article. Also because they are on a Census does not make it notable nor objective. - Jeeny ^Talk 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep very legitimate list.--Sefringle^Talk 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There's no point of subdividing national lists by ethnicity without having the opportunity to show the relevance of such subdivisions. Leave this for articles and categories. Bulldog123 05:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This ethnic demographic is a group that is officially recognised by the UK government. Not all "X people in Country Y" is notable or significant, but this particular group is. Furthermore, lists can do a lot more than what Categories can do. Lists can organise these people by occupation, and make short mention of why the people are notable. We can also have red links in lists. Categories cannot do any of the above. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• The result was Keep. Nominator should read WP:PAPER, we can indeed accommodate 39,006 "List of X people in Country Y" articles, and the lack of or presence of other such articles has no bearing on having this one: WP:ALLORNOTHING. Other deletion arguments about notability of specific individuals listed can be fixed by editing, and are not reasons for deletion. However, pretty much everyone agree that the Chinese represent a notable, distinct ethnic group in Britain, which is the only notability that we need to meet to keep the article. (non-admin closure)--Cerejota 01:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing admin's note: this comment was originally left as a non-admin closure rationale, which I overturned per WP:DPR#NAC. Sandstein 06:38, 25 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 Wrong Venue Move to Redirects for Deletion, Non-Admin Closure. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 15:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrophobic

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

No sources, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. DurinsBane87 15:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll do the following: Redirect the title to -phob-, as was done with the related word Pyrophobia; and BJAODN the current page in my personal collection. Shalom ^Hello 15:10, 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. A rename, as discussed, may be beneficial. ELIMINATORJR 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sherlock Holmes speculation

Sherlock Holmes speculation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The entire article is unsourced speculation. Fails WP:V. Thin Arthur 14:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced. Thin Arthur 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep The article is not unsourced speculation at all. It appears to be an article detailing a variety of published works in the area of Sherlock Holmes "mythology". I also disagree that it fails WP:V since most of the article is discussing published works. JCO312 15:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's not 'unscourced speculation' at all. It gives a summary and brief analysis of various published books and works of fiction and literary criticism which treat Homles and Watson as 'real' people and attempt to embellish their 'back stories'. It's not speculating about some future film or offering original research or theories. Nick mallory 15:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 15:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as this could be improved with some independent sources, or perhaps this would be better reshaped as Critical responses to Sherlock Holmes or something along those lines. --Dhartung | Talk 15:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep but needs sources desperatly. Davnel03 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Back - This stuff here is speculation (like the article says), so merge anything that can be cited back into the main article. I'm not really sure what the point of this article is Corpx 17:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A very well establish genre with multiple published works, and very extensive secondary sourcing. this particular in-world hobby is notable.DGG (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to something like "Speculative works on Sherlock Holmes". The material is real and obviously citable; the current article name is regrettable and confusing. Mangoe 20:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename per Mangoe. The article itself is not speculation, it merely documents the considerable secondary literature about Holmes that has grown up. It's sort of a literary parlor game: try to explain away Conan Doyle's disregard for continuity and his killing off and bringing back the character. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per the above; this actually looks like it could be cleaned up into a decent article. --Haemo 00:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back into the main article, whether it came from Sherlock Holmes or Arthur Conan Doyle Mandsford 04:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a fansite. It should not cover speculation. Postlebury 10:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and possibly rename. The article actually already mentions several reliable sources, such as the essays by Knox and Sayers and the "biography" by Baring-Gould. It's not just nameless fans speculating — it's about a subgenre of published works. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fansite material at best. Carina22 15:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keepthe conceit that Holmes was a real person is an old and popular one, and this article is about that phenomenon. Rename if the title causes confusion that the article is speculative itself rather than about speculation.KTo288 00:30, 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.. CitiCat ^♫ 18:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tucket's Travels

Tucket's Travels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Novel is actually an omnibus and the fact that this omnibus has been published has been written into each of the novels articles Salavat 14:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand the reason to delete. Paulsen still wrote the book, and his works are generally notable. Could you please explain more clearly? Shalom ^Hello 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable published work. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 15:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Its all of books from the series The Tucket Adventures merged into one, hence its just a compilation and i don't think its worth having a separate page for it.
• Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 06:45, 25 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 WP:SNOW delete per reasons outlined below, including WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. — Deckiller 02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars speculation

Star Wars speculation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This entire article is speculation. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Thin Arthur 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Pure fancruft. Thin Arthur 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FANCRUFT, WP:V, and WP:CBALL. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just want to note WP:FANCRUFT is not policy or even a guideline, it's only a POV essay. While personally I like it (for the most part), I don't think it should be used as a "per" reason in AFDs. Tendancer 15:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please read WP:ONLYESSAY. Thin Arthur 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Also be sure to check out WP:ILIKEIT. Jauerback 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment What makes you even think I like this article? Just pointing out the rampant lack of underestanding about the difference between policy/guideline/essays the proliferate through these AFD discussions. The goal may be valid, the arguments given are not. Please read WP:ONLYESSAY and WP:ILIKEIT again as well, esp the sections on 'cruft' as well as the disclaimers on the top. Tendancer 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Oh, I don't know. Maybe where you said, "While personally I like it (for the most part)..."? Jauerback 21:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I apologize. I see you were referring to WP:FANCRUFT. Jauerback 21:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Davnel03 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unlike Sherlock Holmes speculation, which is entirely about a series of published works on the topic, this appears to be pure speculation by the editor. If there are sources that can substantiate the text, as I think there are in the Holmes page, then I would consider keeping it, but since it appears to be the speculation of some editor, it's almost WP:OR more than anything else. JCO312 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsubstantiated original research per above comments. The title says it all. EyeSerene^TALK 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CBALL. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. Jauerback 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced original research. Jay32183 22:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the difference between this and Sherlock Holmes speculation is like night and day; with this one being the time of day which gets deleted for being unsourced speculation --Haemo 00:08, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forehead advertising

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

Recommended for deletion as per WP:NPOV. This is clearly an advertisement Unexplainedbacon 14:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, if not speedy delete per WP:CSD#g11. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While this phenomenon is mildly notable , the article in its current state is pure spam Corpx 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I reverted the page to an earlier revision, which is in much better shape, so changing my position to Neutral based on that now. Corpx 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Human billboard; although much-improved by the reversion, there is not really much content for a stand-alone article. EyeSerene^TALK 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This was quite notable a few years ago, and will become part of the history of advertising as an example of what happens when you can no longer generate publicity. After the first few times, when other people spent a month with words written on their heads, it had gone from "novel" and "original" to "dumb" and "derivative"... and thus a lousy investment of advertising dollars. Mandsford 04:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a notable topic. A Google search returns many reliable sources about the phenomenon. --musicpvm 04:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is clearly not an advertisement, as the company involved is defunct. Beorhtric 16:59, 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. Just a plot summary at present - no problem with re-creation if it can be sourced out of universe. ELIMINATORJR 14:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Enemy, My Ally

My Enemy, My Ally (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, WP:NOT a plot summarry, seems like a non-notable Star Trek book as well, Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and WP:NOT#PLOT. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As written it is clearly a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. It also may not be notable under Wikipedia:Notability (books) (I've looked, and can't find any references to it in other media). I hesitate only because there are a lot of Wikipedia pages about Star Trek books (see the many links to them at List of Star Trek novels) and the author appears to be claiming that s/he intends to do more work on the page. However, more than a month has passed since the page was started without the kind of improvments that would be needed. JCO312 16:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have wikified the page, tracked down the release details and added an infobox, and left in place the Novel article template so that the article can be properly completed (although I don't intend doing this myself as I have little interest in the subject!). The plot summary objections are still valid, but maybe now it qualifies for cleanup rather than deletion? EyeSerene^TALK 19:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This novel was originally published in 1984, and subsequently reprinted in 2006 in an omnibus edition, along with others by the same author and featuring the same characters. That alone probably isn't enough to pass the Wikipedia:Notability (books) criterion, but there are probably reviews in reliable sources which could be used for that purpose. (It looks like there was one in Locus magazine, for example; it's not available online, but if someone wanted to go to the library that would do the trick.) Within the context of Star Trek fandom (yeah, I know) the books are somewhat controversial, because they were the first to create a detailed culture for the Romulans (which Duane calls "Rihannsu" — yep, I know we'll see that on AfD by tomorrow); this culture was pretty much ignored by the later television series, but some fans prefer Duane's version of the Romulans to the ones with the shoulder pads from later TV series. I'd be willing to wager that there have been articles in Starlog and the like discussing this book. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep per research by Josiah Rowe. I don't have them available at the moment, but I can verify that this has been discussed in Starlog and other reliable sources. JoshuaZ 21:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 06:44, 25 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 reasons counter the argument that it has no reliable sources which support notability, and thus appears not to be notable. --Haemo 01:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jslibs

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

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

Contested prod. Lacks third-party references to show notability. Represents a conflict of interest, since the article was created by User:Soubok, who is the developer of Jslibs. Wikipedia should not be a publishing vehicle for personal projects that have attracted no general notice. Google finds references to things called 'jslibs' since the name is used in different senses, but 'jslibs soubok' gets only 196 results. EdJohnston 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RS, and WP:COI. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep The only problem EdJohnston, seems to be that I am the owner of the project and I write the article. If the article leaks of fairness, details, or other things, I will change it WP:RS. As you can see, this project has started recently, notability will come later (btw, 196 google references to “jslibs soubok” for a project that has started 7 month is a good interest score, “jslibs” give 54,700 results ... I think that only a few references give the name of the author) . If there is an ambiguity about jslibs, we can create a "disambiguation" page. Please, don't delete my contribution. about WP:COI: my contribution seems to be neutral and verifiable (the project is open-source, everything is verifiable), if it is not the case, i will change any non-verifiable or non-neutral items. about WP:RS: as I said before everything is reliable because the project is open-source. Soubok 18:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep per above. Sbouba 17:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC) "'jslibs soubok' gets only 196 results" it only proves that soubok is not promoting himself. By the way, 'jslibs -ads' which his the main second sense for jslibs gets 37000 results. Sbouba 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC) — Sbouba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete This project needs coverage from reliable secondary sources for it to be notable. I'm opposed to keeping articles based on "notability will come later" premise Corpx 17:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Corpx (without prejudice). Notability needs to be shown now, not later; there is always the possibility that notability will never come. However, if it eventually does that article can be recreated (may be worth copying to user space in the meantime...?) EyeSerene^TALK 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment the popularity seems to be the single argument against jslibs. As a said before 'jslibs soubok' is only a part because only a few references give the name of the author. Soubok 18:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep: I have been using jslibs in a project of mine for more than a month now. The article is a good introduction to show the facilities this open source library provides for any developpers interested in adding (java)scripting to their application. Julien.v3ga 21:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC) — Julien.v3ga (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• keep: I think it's really bad to delete this page. I've known this project from Wikipedia, and been attracted by it now. It differs from some other javascript libraries because it is native C implementation based on SpiderMonkey not Java one. And the owner Soubok works hardly on it. He ports many useful libs to javascript and now is working on fcgi implementation. This page gives a good overview to this project. Many more people will know jslibs from here and contribute to it. I hope it can became another cool dynamic server side scripting language just like Python and Ruby. We should not consider one thing only on Google result right? Rui Tang 17:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC+8) — Tangrui (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - no notability established. Also, whoever reviews this AfD nomination should notice that some of those who voted "keep" so far use criteria that cannot be used to support such a vote, e.g. "I have been using," and "I think it's really bad to delete this page. I've known this project from Wikipedia, and been attracted by it now."--Svetovid 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment Perhaps some figures will help to estimate the Wikipedia:Notability of the project: del.icio.us has more that 530 references to jslibs, google give 200 results for "jslibs soubok", jslibs.googlecode.com has more than 5100 unique visitors (not page loads) last 7 month and 2230 downloads last 8 month. And by the way, jslibs was cited on the main page of OpenGL (www.opengl.org) on 01/29/2007. Soubok 00:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep: For most people, Javascript is well-known to be used inside a web page. I have often read incorrect articles or tutorials about Javascript , in particular when the 'limitation' term is used about this language because these articles talk only of the use inside a web page. Even if it is the most popular use of this language, it is only one aspect. An equivalent is to consider that Java is reducted to applets. Fortunately, Wikipedia repairs this mistake. There is a section named "Uses outside Web pages" which open the way for a non conventional way. The only drawback is that the mentioned links are essentially paying tools. The advantage of the jslibs article is that it provides an open source library which gives the ability to use Javascript language outside a web page. Excepting jslibs, can someone tell me how you can use Javascript in a standalone application outside a browser without made by hand the basic and common bindings ? jslibs is certainly a recent project but an innovative and promising project, it is easy to use and very powerful. For all these reasons and the accomplished work, we can consider that jslibs deserves its place in Wikipedia. 90.6.150.80 18:52, 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. WP:V, a foundation-level policy, is not negotiable. The article contains no sources that are cited to support any of its content. Recreation is allowed once there are sufficient reliable sources - which do not include the previously removed links to various Russian-language websites of indeterminate reliability. Sandstein 06:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early human rocket flight efforts

Early human rocket flight efforts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. For those parts that can then a paragraph in an article like Human spaceflight or similar will cover it. This article will be a magnet for those webcruft articles about theoretical Nazi programmes which never got anywhere but are written up as if they were fact. For example one of the cited sources for this article stated that its sources were "Reports of several Internet forums at the end of March 2001"[18]. Keeping articles like this only bolsters such speculation. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge verifiable content to Rocket#Early manned rocketry, not Human spaceflight (since by definition, this stuff is not) and remove unsourced Nazi stuff. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 13:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This must be separate article but no should be a paragraph in any one articles devoted to space or rockets only, because:

    -none of all described flights intended to be a spaceflight

    -none of all described flights abled to achive a space

    [MAIN] all or significant parts of content of this article is appropriated as paragraph equally to many other articles (Human spaceflight, Astronaut, Rocket, Timeline of first space traveler by state, List of human spaceflights, Sub-orbital spaceflight, Aggregate series, Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII etc) 217.23.177.50 14:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Rocket#Early manned rocketry (seems like a better page name) if any of the information has reliable sources --Philip Baird Shearer 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • All facts are present in 6 listed sources (and in other sources that links from these sources). Low confirmation of some facts and non-English of sources - is not absence of sources and not reason for deletion of whole article (whole text).

    When article was semi-protected and proposed for deletion, some of important links (added to section "Further reading" almost simultaniously) and note about low reliability were losted - see revision [19] These need to be restored, or those who read, edit and estimate the article would have luck of backup info (reliable or not - it is other question). 217.23.177.50 14:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Please read WP:V and WP:RS The few sources that were cited were not reliable ones. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Even in exampled most skeptically-skilled source [20] info about flights in late1944/beginning1945 and 24.01.1945 no written as flood from Internet forums. In source stated that this claims widely disputed long before of Internet and destiny of pilots is unclear 217.23.177.50 15:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, sourced, but sources do not meet the criteria in WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Listed sources (and sources referred from the ands of texts from these sources) are not single. At the same time no any official or doubtful disproofs exist. Article no hides unreliability and luck of backup of some facts (although this may be emphasized more). WP:RS not order the deletion of article. 217.23.177.50 15:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • 217.23.177.50 please read WP:RS#What is a reliable source? "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. ...". and WP:RS#Questionable sources "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. ..." --Philip Baird Shearer 15:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A lack of disproof as evidence that these manned flights did occur? Please. And if the article acknowledges that the claims are unreliable, then how are such doubtful claims notable or encyclopedic enough to be here? The answer is that they are not. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 15:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. It's similar to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations or Unidentified flying object, nobody would suggest to delete them, or merge them into Apollo program or Flying wing. Maybe a title change to "History of manned rocket flight ideas before 1961" could both lessen the claim that actual manned launches took place, and illustrate the topic better. Proper Human spaceflight began in 1961, but the idea of manned rocket flight, as well as some claimed attempts and factual flights, is older. A subsection in Rocket is not enough to cover the subject in necessary depth, as the German Me 163, Bachem etc. as well as the American X-plane (aircraft) series are barely mentioned there. Deleting a Wiki article will not silence internet rumors, thus it is better to have an article that covers everything related, from Wan Hu and Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon or Frau im Mond to claims for or by Nazis, in order to clearly separate fact from fiction. In contrast to the deletion nomination claim, this article can serve as a "magnet" for search engines which right now point to "webcruft". Reasonable books were written on the subjects involved, discussing claims. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       15:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As the initial author of the article I would expect you to support its retention :-) But as Swpb says below, if and when there is enough reliably sourced material for a full article then it can become a stand alone article. But at the moment there is not one reliable source for this stuff as it is structured at the moment. BTW there is already an article on rocket-powered aircraft which along with list of rocket planes covers the Me 163 and the X-plane (aircraft). --Philip Baird Shearer 17:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that while User:Matthead "created" this article, he was splitting content which had been added to Astronaut by another editor - so ownership isn't likely to factor into his position (although everyone here assumes good faith, so we have nothing to worry about :-) ) — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 18:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but properly source. This might be better titled Human spaceflight attempts rather than the essayish title it has. I agree this is not easily covered as simply a small part of rocket. --Dhartung | Talk 15:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this topic could merit a full article, but there is not enough good content here right now for one. Merging to Rocket does not exclude a future split out from that article. If someone wants to expand this article significantly in the course of this AfD, I would consider supporting keeping it. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting effort into articles and topics that are in imminent danger of getting deleted, pushed around, shortened to near-zero etc. is of pretty low priority to me, and probably others too. I'm tired of defending or improving stuff that gets frequently attacked. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep there's enough documented content to keep, and further improvements are for the editors--Afd is not a substitute for the article talk page. Title change needed "Early manned rocket attempts", perhaps. DGG (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Which documents are you referring to? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, none of the content is "documented" as of now. What are you talking about? — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 21:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of Early_human_rocket_flight_efforts#German_developments_during_World_War_II is documented, even though somebody asked for citations. The ill-fated vertical flight of Lothar Sieber is a fact, as well as the Me 163 being in service with nine confirmed kills. Also, as thousands of V-2 were launched with a 1000kg warhead, a human could(!) have traveled in there instead once, similar to the V-1 which definitively was tested with pilots. Of course, Peenemünde had to deliver weapons, not useless human space flights. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       02:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, by "none of the content is 'documented'" I meant reliably sourced here on Wikipedia, not that no documentation exists. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 02:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Smerge Shorten and merge into Rocket#Early manned rocketry. Lots of hoaxy little myths, lacking references, will only result in other sources copying from Wikipedia claims that 'so and so put a 100 kilogram rocket under his chair and flew from Shangri-La to Timbukto in 1123 AD, having invented the kilogram in the process.' Nip this in the bud, move anything which can be sourced to the other article, and then add sourced info if any can be found. Might as well cite Gravity's Rainbow, a novel by a writer who had access to the V2 program archives, who wrote in the novel about a V2 launch with an unwilling human passenger, "Gottfried." Edison 21:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge. Lacking good sources this can't stand alone. Rmhermen 22:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep But get some citations to sources, or this is going to plummet back to Earth real quick. You can't launch yourself if you don't have some backup. The episodes, if they are shown to be real, would be extremely notable... but "citation needed" is all over the article. Mandsford 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• DELETEMuch of this article is unverified and uses sources that do not meet wikipedia standards for credibility.--Abebenjoe 04:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I was actually expecting a full-length article on just the Chinese rocket chair, but was interested to find this history. Rocket is already 38K, which seems long enough to keep this material as a subarticle. It's fine to leave a warning banner up for perhaps up to a few months while people make an affirmative effort to find references (or a lack thereof) that confirm or contradict the claims made. -- Beland 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What material in this article are you talking about?. WP:V does not say "leave a warning banner up for perhaps up to a few months" it says "I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." To date NOT ONE PARAGRAPH that mentions manned flight in the article has a reliable source and it already has been in existence for five days. If we remove all the paragraphs with a citation needed (say after a week) unless things change in the next few days there will not be any text left in the article about manned flight. BTW If you expected to find a " full-length article on just the Chinese rocket chair" the what are the sources for it? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Maintain a diligent effort to WP:AGF and WP:DBN while removing material for which no one can provide any published source. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. (sdsds - talk) 05:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If the material for which there are no reliable sources are removed there is nothing left in the article. It may as well be a redirect to a section until enough reliably sourced material is found. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as info dump. Cool Hand Luke 00:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of smartphones

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

Redlink Farm, no reasonable definition of "Smartphone". No references. Editors with WP:AGENDA intent on keeping the iPhone off the list. KelleyCook 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Better served as a category. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It needs to be cleaned up, but I don't see how this is any different from Comparison of portable media players. I do think it should be trimmed to non-redlinked articles and updated as more articles are created. Paul^C/_T+ 22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. It differs from Comparison of portable media players by just being a big list full of redlinks; at least Comparison of portable media players does more than just enumerate portable media players. Guy Harris 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see a problem with this list; it's an organized collection of smartphones by company/type. Having redlinks is not a reason to delete. Certain users having an agenda to not include the iPhone (which i believe should be included) is in no way a reason to delete either. --musicpvm 04:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I see no compelling reason to keep this when there is a perfectly good category (Category:Smartphones). See WP:NOT#INFO. Ccscott 19:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are lists of all kinds of technology devices. A list like this is interesting and informational. Althepal 19:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy Harris. Slartibartfast (1992) 22:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Reading the Wikipedia article on smartphones, it appears that the term is still in-development throughout the phone industry. Even the linked resource for the definition uses the phrase "a smartphone's features may include"... The word "may" shouldn't be there. The characteristics should be chizzled in stone. As a result, almost any advanced phone can be added to this list with the proper argument in-place. Sorry, these lists shouldn't have to work like that. Groink 03:55, 24 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. Singularity 03:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jaywalk

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

Incomplete nomination from Introgressive (talk · contribs), with an editing summary of "No references, band vanity, what else?" Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 12:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N. Fails WP:MUSIC. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Are either Nippon Crown or Meldac notable record companies? Because, if so, this would barely pass WP:MUSIC as, per All-Music Guide, they have an album out on Sony. If not, delete.--Sethacus 16:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• I know it's not admissible as evidence of notability, but the band biography on their website suggests they've got a whole lot of albums, and have toured numerous times throughout Japan and SE Asia. The volume of albums is pretty damn impressive, at a glance. However, my Japanese consists of about twenty words, most of which are sushi dishes, so I can't say anything about reliable sources for now - but I've got a friend whose masters thesis was on Japanese music, whom I'll check with tonight. Neutral leaning towards keep until I've got something to work with. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, keep - for one, they've got a huge discography (42 albums, which do include some karaoke collections, but still), and their bio indicates they've toured regularly. They have a radio show on Tokyo FM, and were one of the bands that competed in the 1991 (I think) NHK Kōhaku Uta Gassen, which is generally reserved for one of the best bands of the year. They have an article on .ja; Nippon Crown is located here as well. I'm going to flag this discussion for attention from our Japanese associates to help with sourcing, just to help out. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment if delete, the dab page should replace the deleted page. 70.55.85.118 07:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 何も言えなくて...夏 returns almost 50k ghits, combined with jaywalk it's still close to 20k. Also, pretty sure Nippon Crown is a major label (and according to Wikip, has been around since 1963). Precious Roy 16:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above arguments to keep. Seems like they pass WP:MUSIC.--Sethacus 01:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as they pass WP:MUSIC. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:23, 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 per WP:SNOW, appropriately enough. Daniel Case 04:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities on the 45th Parallel North

List of cities on the 45th Parallel North (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another pointless list. It could easily lead to another 179 lists Malcolma 12:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete although it is potentially finite in scope, the list is unencyclopedic. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Best served as a category. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete That's just weird. WP:NOT#INFO. Shalom ^Hello 15:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a collection of loosely related topics. No need to categorize, either, as it would still be overcategorization if made into a category. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO - I dont think we need a list of cities on every latitude and longitude Corpx 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• They forgot Minneapolis (which has a plaque at the corner of Golden Valley Road and Theodore Wirth Parkway), Plymouth, Maplewood, North St. Paul, Oakdale, Lake Elmo, and Baytown Township. Then, there's a small section of Wausau, Wisconsin as well. Anyone else care? Neither do I. Delete as listcruft. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Now this is certainly an appropriate article for the term listcruft. DGG (talk) 20:22, 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 bulldoze. DS 03:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charl Ras

Apparent hoax, can't find anything on Google except a walled garden of similarly unverifiable articles created by same author (also listed here for deletion). Oddly enough, all of them cite "unpublished work" by "Dan Biddulph" as sources. At least one of the cited "sources" (New York Times, for Jacob Coates) is fake. NawlinWiki 12:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Also including:

• Alan "Big Al" West
• David J. Sommer
• Dominic Harris
• Jacob Coates
• Nico 'Jazzman' Beedle

---

• Delete all per nom. Nothing checks out. Nadda. --Evb-wiki 14:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all unless reliable sources can be found. Currently unverifiable. Also per nom. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All per WP:RS, and WP:V. Also, WP:HOAX may apply. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:36, 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. Singularity 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aa1

Aa1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Google search reveals companies like Aa1 USA Co., Aa1 Books, and Aa1 Work from home buissness, but nothing suggests a band Aa1. The only possible source is a german page that turned up on that search (which I have no chance of reading), but it doesn't look like it's talking about a band. (The wikipedia article is on page 2) Furthermore, the article doesn't mention the label its albums are released under. Fails WP:BAND. Panoptical 12:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BAND and not WP:V. Even the official website doesn't work. --Evb-wiki 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND, and WP:V. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:35, 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 a7 g11 -- Y not? 19:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The office pub

The office pub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is just a random pub. Without any distinction in particular, it blatantly fails WP:N. There are no sources at all given for the content of this article. The PROD tag was removed by the article creator, who happens to have the same name as the article itself. Deranged bulbasaur 11:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No notability (unless you count it's quiz night). Also, WP is not a travel guide which is what this reads like at the moment. --kateshortforbob 12:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as blatant advertising per WP:CSD#G11. —gorgan_almighty 12:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• speddy delete pure advertising --St.daniel ^Talk 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Should have been speedied. AVTN 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Tagged per WP:CSD#g11. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Blatant advertising.--PrestonH 19:23, 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 delete. Singularity 03:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OpenLab GNU/Linux

OpenLab GNU/Linux (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable super-secret-SCOX-IP-free Linux distro, no evidence of third party coverage. MER-C 10:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 12:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure you could claim it has no third-party coverage. There's already two in the article itself [21] [22]. --Android Mouse 20:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of notability.--Chealer 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 11:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• relisting - The second linked text shown by Android Mouse reads «there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of Linux operating system distributions already available» but also that «[OpenLab is] installed in hundreds of school and community computer labs across Africa.». Just another distribution? Or one worthy of an article? - Nabla 11:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch. This made me doubt about my recommendation, but I could find a few reasons why that figure may not make OpenLab "that notable":

• It's unsourced and could be inexact.
• African schools have fewer computers. Being on 5 computers per school in 200 schools is only 1000 installs.
• It was true when the article was written, but it's not anymore. OpenLab seems to be dying.
• The vendor provided incentive to use OpenLab, hence the userbase would be particularly fragile.

Since the full name ("openlab GNU/linux" -wikipedia) only gets 92 Google hits, I'm standing by my Delete.--Chealer 02:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:28, 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, but someone needs to definitely clean up this article. Singularity 03:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragan Vasiljković

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

My previous proposal that this article be deleted was removed without any significant changes being made. Most of the article strongly reflects one person’s POV. It requires a complete re-write. Otherwise, it should be removed.

Below, I have explained clearly my reasons for applying the AfD tag. In the first paragraph, almost every sentence is written in a biased tone, or contains information that is not verifiable.

(1 paragraph removed as defamatory comments were made)

I understand that Dragan is revered by SOME Serbs. However, he is considered a war criminal by many (Serbs and Croats). This article should not convey a POV for OR against him – it should be neutral and factual! Otherwise it should not exist!

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to express your own point of view, especially to lobby support for someone who is charged with a crime! That’s what Myspace is for. It is an encyclopedia – i.e. it is supposed to be objective!

Read the rules for Wikipedia if you want to contribute! If you can’t do that, write nothing!

… been held in an Australian prison for over one and a half years with convicted prisoners, yet he himself has not been charged.

Your tone implies that he is the victim of an injustice. This is your POV!

What makes Dragans case interesting…

Interesting to who? You? You are expressing your POV.

is that even though he has been an Australian citizen for over 30 years, no evidence of the allegations against him was required by the Australian government.

Again, use a neutral tone!

If it was the USA, Canada, NZ or the UK requesting his extradition, an evidence case is mandatory (House of commons 2003).

Not verifiable!

Dragan is revered by the Serbian people because after his role in the war

Not verifiable!

The Serbian people believe…

You do not speak for all Serbs!

They are petitioning for him to face the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague if he must face trial.

Are all Serbs in the world are signing this petition?

However, they also claim that he has already faced 18 hours of questioning at the War Crimes Tribunal and even rejected an offer of immunity for anything that he might have done. He was released and not one of his men were indicted.

Again, you are conveying YOUR point of view that he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

Therefore, the Serbian community believe that the accusations against Dragan are unfounded and are just a means to get him into Croatia. They are also surprised that Dragan (AKA Daniel Snedden) has not received the public support that David Hicks has.

This comparison is stupid - Hicks and Dragan have nothing in common.

In July 2007 Dragan was able to commence the defamation proceedings against Nationwide news. The court found that six out of ten of the statements against Dragan were libellous and defamatory.The proceedings are stood over in the Supreme Court of New South Wales until 27th July 2007.

You are only selecting the results of the trial that support your POV!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaark (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Being poorly written is not a reason for deletion, it just needs to be fixed. The news articles cited show notability, and there are enough sources to write a verifiable article. Kevin 10:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for now (with no objection to another article of the same name being created at a later date). The news articles show that the subject is notable, but this article is completely original research and appears to be heavily biased. It needs to be re-written from scratch. —gorgan_almighty 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite, obviously. --Martin Wisse 14:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Kevin Twenty Years 14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The sources support notability but needs a cleanup. Capitalistroadster 02:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. the subject is notable, and that's what counts. DGG (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but rewrite because it's pretty POV at the moment. What is it about articles concerning the Balkans that they seem to always be a cesspit of racial POV? Also, this page is a discussion on whether to keep this article, not a discussion on the merits of the prosecution case against Vasiljkovic. Lankiveil 05:46, 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 Speedy Delete g11 - Philippe | Talk 20:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The last 4 feet

The last 4 feet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm concerned about the notability of this company; however, I want to bring it before the community to establish a consensus. Spring Rubber 09:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - currently, the company appears non-noteable, with few hits on Google / Yahoo and in its present state - it is a very poorly written article. Lradrama 10:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 11:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. WP:CSD#g11. Spam. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:26, 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 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reading Motivation Questionnaire

Reading Motivation Questionnaire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't really seem to be a notable concept. 215 non-wiki ghits, no evidence of mainstream coverage. It also turns out that the author of this article, Dduttaroy (talk · contribs) is the author of the only paper (listed in the sources section) on the subject. MER-C 09:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established through verifiable third party sources, plus WP:COI concerns. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment — I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or deleted, but the nominator mis-categorized it as "fiction and the arts". I'm not sure which of the AfD categories it belongs in, but I'm sure it's not "fiction and the arts". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - If it meets notability, we can fix COI. --Rocksanddirt 17:32, 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. There was majority in favour of deletion, 6-4 with all but one of the keeps weak. Importantly, no notability has been asserted in the article and none of the keepers have been able to source anything notable, for example awards or independent reviews in significant publications. TerriersFan 16:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nation's Giant Hamburgers

Non-notable restaurant chain, no independent references given, fails WP:CORP. Recreated after deletion in November 2005. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP. There are quite a few sources that mention the chain, but they all seem to be directory type reviews. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep lots of article mentions above and beyond directories, presence in the bay area media (including winning awards), other coverage in media (court cases, robbery, etc). Weak only because I can't find definitive sources establishing the notability, but I strongly suspect that this is a cleanup case. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep - Looks like it has been reviewed by some newspapers Corpx 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Local chain of 24 stores. None of the articles in the link cited are reviews--they all seem to be either mere listings or reader opinion about what restaurants they like, which is no more reliable than a blog, or trivial stories. That a restaurant is robbed does not make it notable. DGG (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't appear to be enough material to do an article, unless we want to cover the robbery (which we don't). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Looks to be a chain with 60 years of history and at least local notability, based on Google News findings. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of meeting WP:RS or WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep well known with a long local history. What's next Nathan's or Jack in the Box? Article is a decent stub, and needs expansion, not deletion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 09:53, 24 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 03:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Bytch Killa

Mr Bytch Killa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page contains fictitious person without reference to printed materials that contain the subject in the article. Calroe 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This guy is an idiot, and a joke and in no way deserving of a wikipedia page.
• Delete - totally non-noteable - Google and the words up and coming rapper and huge fanbase on the internet say it all. Lradrama 11:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:RS, and WP:HOAX (See Incarceration section: "His lifestyle led to his convertion, in Early 2000, on charges of Homosexual Activity and Popping Anus Possession. He was given an 0.5 day sentence, with an opportunity for a parole hearing after 0.five and a half years.") Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as speedily as possible as a blatant and obvious hoax. Should be removed immediately due to WP:BLP concerns. A stern warning to the creator is in order. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Hilarious hoax, please delete before I urinate in my pants. Skidmark, TX! Bearian 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Nenyedi, reads like bad imitation of a CB4 character▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 11:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clear Hoax.Nigel Ish 17:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball delete, obvious hoax. Has been moved to my personal BJAODN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:08, 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 11:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lazarus, NM

Lazarus, NM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a bogus show article started by someone with a checkered wiki-past. Tbone2001 08:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RS, the only related ghit was WP, and also delete per WP:HOAX, and WP:CBALL. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete probable hoax and no sources, per nom and Nenyedi. I, too, had zero hits with a Google search with "Lazarus, NM" HBO -wikipedia. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as probable hoax, unless sources are forthcoming. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:53, 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 per lack of reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability. — TKD::Talk 11:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eva Sayer

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

Procedural, prod removed without addressing the concerns - no verifiable assertion of notability. The Rambling Man 08:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral - does have an IMDB entry, but this article is mostly copy-and-paste from that page. No references have been added, as listed above the prod tag was removed without reason or changes made, and only one person has made any edits to the page, appearing to be a fan. Zchris87v 08:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of coverage from RS Corpx 15:55, 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 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Untold Story (Chopped and Screwed)

Untold Story (Chopped and Screwed) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable mixtape that's not the subject of multiple, non-trivial sources. By "non-trivial", I mean it's not the subject of anything beyond a track list. Spellcast 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom, and because this is not the actual mixtape, it's just a "chopped and screwed" version, which any DJ can make. --- Realest4Life 02:15, 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 redirect. Singularity 02:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of television stations in Arizona by city of license

List of television stations in Arizona by city of license (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I don't see why we need a list that is listed by the city of license. --Hirohisat ^Talk 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Probably wouldn't be hard to look this up for yourself, as well as violating the directory portion of WP:NOT as listed above. Article is an unreferenced directory, that's about it. Zchris87v 06:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. —gorgan_almighty 13:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Better served as a category. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as being redundant to List of television stations in Arizona. I disagree that WP:NOT is the reason to delete here, lists of television channels by state seem to be OK by wikipedia standards, and there is certainly nothing wrong with wanting to sort it by city. This list however is an incomplete effort at doing so. What would make better sense is to present the information in the other list (and indeed in all of the "List of television stations in state" articles) in sortable, tabular format. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of television stations in Arizona. This does not violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY as it is a list of notable and associated encyclopedic topics which aids in navigation. However, since the introduction of sortable wikitables, it is redundant to the main list of television stations in Arizona. Redundant articles should be redirected, not deleted, per the deletion policy. DHowell 00:13, 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. — TKD::Talk 10:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Dao

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

Alleged YouTube celebrity; but subject lacks outside coverage. YouTube stats are respectable, though dwarfed by other YouTube celebs'. Ichormosquito 06:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - most of the editing, actually all except for adding tags, was done by a single user. Seems to be a fan. Mostly the subject lacks notability, aside from his personal account on youtube and fansite. Zchris87v 06:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, and WP:N. Also fails WP:RS, and WP:WEB. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:03, 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. The links provided in the last comment are stories mostly about oil prices in general; this company is mentioned in the context of being representative of general trends. As brought up in the discussion, this isn't enough to qualify as a reliable source about the company. — TKD::Talk 11:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rozoil

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

Non-notable energy startup; article appears to exist largely just to promote the company. ghits [23] NMChico24 06:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - It reads as spam to me. --Hirohisat ^Talk 06:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:SPAM and fails WP:ORG. Carlosguitar 11:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - There is little information circulating about this industry and who is involved in it, eventhough it effects a heavily populated area and and can be linked to many other topics of research and discussion. Negevboy 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If one of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to spread information and knowledge to places that this information and knowledge would be otherwise unknown, than there is no practical reason that this entry be deleted. Those who are not familiar with the Heating Oil Industry in New Haven CT, will have no clue who Rozoil is and why the company is important to note, both in a historical context of heating oil and the New Haven heating oil market, and also in a business perspective. Being that Rozoil is a progressive company many other companies have recently been changed or formed to follow a similar business model.

Those who have elected to have this entry be deleted simply do not see why this article and the topics discussed in it are relevant. If anything as it's creator I would say that this article should be given time so that it can be edited to provide more sources and or clean up to substantiate the points and information that make it worthy to be read. In short the COD type of heating oil companies were started during the 1980's in New Haven, CT and have since spread throughout the Northeast. Unfortunately there is not substantial data on the internet that is readily available that can back this. But I do know that Bigger Automatic companies have tried for decades to squash the COD business and this could be a real reason as to why we don’t hear that much about it. Whatever the reason may be, Rozoil is the Biggest COD company in the region, and because of this it is worthy of recognition. I do not think that this article is offering spam, and the reality is Rozoil is heavily searched word on the internet in New Haven. The more information that readers have about the oil industry, and the players involved in local, regional and global dealings with this subject, the better. I would not flag for deletion an article about the Hassane Tribe in the Western Sahara as a possible plug to initiate a tribal war, but would read it with interest. So the same if somebody is interested in the heating oil industry of new haven, or COD oil companies than they will have an article to read in Rozoil. So to close, this article should remain on Wikipedia, time should be given that better sources used as references, and the News articles that have made recent headlines about the company should prove it is worthy of attention and capable of providing a source of knowledge and information. Negevboy 13:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N, WP:ORG, and WP:SPAM. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment to Negevboy - actually, the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of notable subjects, not a a collection of everything that has ever existed. Unless this company is to be historically notable in some way, and you have the reliable sources to verify this notability, then this company doesn't warrant an article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment to NeoChaos - Thank you for reading my post. I have noted 3 significant points that are worthy of this article being kept. 1) There is no mention of the COD Heating Oil business on Wikipedia. 2) The New Haven Heating Oil Market, is one of the most competitive oil markets in the country, 3) Rozoil is the biggest COD heating oil company in New Haven. I agree with you that their needs to be better representation of these points so that they can be sourced back too, in some way - so that this will not be perceived as an advertisement - this only needs time and not deletion. Although, as I have mentioned, little is circulating about COD companies because the major Automatic Companies have attempted to squash them, in every way shape and form. Just out of curiosity why would [[24]]be allowed an article and Rozoil not? Negevboy 18:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding that article you linked, just because an article for one small business exists doesn't mean other businesses can have one, too. Articles still need to meet the notability and verifiability guidelines, and those that get away with it can sometimes be too obscure for most editors to notice (but thanks for pointing it out!). In regards to Rozoil, you can save the article with supplying reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the company (as well as back up the three points you made), and reference those sources in the article. This discussion will run 5 days, so that's plenty of time for you to find sources and improve the article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per: WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. I don't think the few external sources cited have sufficient depth to prove notability. (Ie, one line in a local newspaper quoting a company regarding the price of oil does not a WP:RS make. Also, as a note to Negevboy: Bob's_Discount_Furniture is now being considered for deletion as well. bfigura ^(talk) 04:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are more sources that should substantiate the companies notability besides "1 line" - Try two 5' oclock news reports with video, on two TV stations, [25] and [26] and many more mentions in the New Haven Register - July 06 [27]Jan 06 [28]Feb 06 [29], July 07, [30]The trend has been, that to follow what is going on the New Haven Oil Market - just ask Rozoil. They are a (notable) leader in their market and these sorces prove that. Negevboy 16:42, 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 per lack of reliable sources found. The article only provides press releases and a source that mentions the company trivially, and no one has provided concrete examples of suitable sources. — TKD::Talk 11:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pet Butler

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

Artice reads like an ad and gives unnecessary list of places it services. Was originally tagged as WP:CSD#G11 but it has been around a while and may have some salvageable content so I am bringing it here for the community to review. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Looking back at the history it seems it may have been deleted before and recreated. In any event, it blatantly fails WP:CSD#G11. Oodles of advertising doesn't make content. bfigura ^(talk) 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Pet Butler should probably copy and paste everything before it's deleted - this would make a great website for the company. Zchris87v 07:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it just needs rewriting. Currently, it is written like an advert and displays examples of POV, but the company certainly isn't non-noteable from what I've seen on Google and Yahoo and the references that are provided. Requires clean-up operation to make it worthy enough to be called a Wikipedia article. Lradrama 10:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep sounds like a notable service, but the article needs some cleanup, with the locations list going first. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Blatantly spam. Don't know how you can rewrite it without a continuation of spam.
• Delete I didnt know such a service existed, so there might be room for an article on the business niche in general, but this company isnt notable--13 locations only. DGG (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe if they were a publicly traded company and had some historical reference. This is a small pet business. Not much notable. It's apparent it is here for advertising. No content here, just advertising.
• Delete - seems like an ad to me. A quick scan through the references shows that they're mostly from the company itself. _TheIslander 21:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- Back in June I took a shot at deleting the pure advertising from the article -- this revision was what I came up with. It was reverted a month later by an apparent single-purpose editor (edit summary : "restoring after vandalism") to a version nearly identical to the current one. I think the non-advertising version is in the 'barely notable' category, and would keep that one, but the current article doesn't cut it. -- ArglebargleIV 05:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)