Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 18

< August 17	August 19 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carli Banks

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Carli Banks

Articles for deletion/Carli Banks (2nd nomination)

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 00:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 00:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Valrith 11:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep She has been featured in well-known magazines.--Bedivere 18:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- So have thousands of others. Epbr123 19:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Tabercil 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dayne Walling

Non-notable wannabe politician. Not in office. Indeed, not even a candidate. Attempt to drum up visibility. — Coren ^(talk) 23:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The mayor of Flint, Michigan is notable. A candidate for mayor is not. A potential candidate even less so. No other assertion of notability. Obviously no problem with the article being recreated if he should run and win. Resolute 03:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A7: Unremarkable person. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
CSD guy's only claim to fame is running for mayor of a town, and I do not think that's automatically notable Corpx 04:58, 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. --Core desat 06:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US 1st Parachute Battalion (fictional unit)

Obviously about a military unit fictional in a fictional setting, but there is no context as to whether it’s related to a game, a novel, or just the author’s own creation. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it addresses a subordinate unit:

Delete both per WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 23:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per lacking real world notability Corpx 04:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - this is so {{inuniverse}} that I don't even know what it's about. Fails notability guidelines. --Haemo 06:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete both. I added the in-universe tags to these articles in hope that someone would clarify what they were talking about. As nobody seems to have heard of them, they can't be that notable. --kateshortforbob 09:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Convinced by the above.--Bedivere 18:55, 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 so keep, and move to David Zwirner Gallery. Bduke 08:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Zwirner

Owner of a non-notable art gallery. Borderline spammy, and unsourced. — Coren ^(talk) 23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Small art galleries can be notable. The artists represented certainly are. That said the article is not worth much in its current state. It is up to the author to add references and improve the content if he wants it to be kept. The article would be better recast as being about the gallery than the owner himself. --DanielRigal 23:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Will you help me do this? I added the information because I was looking him up online and Wikipedia only had a "please build this page" on his name. I wanted to fill in what little I did know about him and his gallery in the hopes that someone else would know more later. I did find coverage of his exhibitions online, but very little about the gallery itself other than boilerplate PR information. This is the first Wikipedia page I've created and I'd like to learn how to write better entries. Goawayplease, Mary Hawkins 00:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first (and most important thing) you have to do is find coverage from reliable sources; such as books, newspapers, etc. They need not be on the web, although that helps because it simplifies verifiability to some degree. The gallery seems to have a number of notable artists, this makes it likely that non-trivial press coverage exists.

Once you found that coverage, use the information to flesh up the article making sure you cite the sources you have found. — Coren ^(talk) 00:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Can we just rename the article and hack it about a bit to make it about the gallery?--Bedivere 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep because extensive media references would indicate that a proper article can be written, although it should be clearly about the gallery not the person, and the current version needs much work. Eleland 21:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete notability not established through sources. If this cahnges I will reconsider. Nuttah68 10:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom not notable.Harlowraman 17:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to David Zwirner Gallery, given that some outside coverage in reliable sources exists. The article needs much cleanup, and will also need restructuring - but the gallery does appear to be notable enough to take a swing at it. A new article under this name may be warranted if the owner becomes notable for reasons beyond the gallery. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:05, 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 deleted --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr jackrabbit and mr raven show

Borderline nonsense; apparent hoax. "Euan Ferguson" gets Google hits as a British journalist. This appears to be the biography of a pair of non-notable fictional characters with no reference to the putative fiction they appear in. — Coren ^(talk) 23:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I agree that it seems to be nonsense. I was just about to put speedy delete on it for incoherence and lack of any assertion of notability. I think it should be deleted even if it isn't a hoax. --DanielRigal 23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete G1, nonsense, so tagged. Also moved to my personal BJAODN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:25, 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. --Core desat 06:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camelot (drinking game)

{Prod} contested ("...It won't take long for it to spread to other colleges. ...it wouldn't be right to deny the rest of the USA from finding out about it." from Talk:Camelot (drinking game)), so here we are...Two-month old, local drinking game is not notable--also problems with WP:OR and WP:VERIFY (MySpace and FaceBook are not valid refs) and zero (non-Wikipedia) hits-http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22ping+pong+ball%22+camelot+re-rack. The purpose of Wikipedia is to document (previously established) notability, not create notability. Seattlenow 22:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete The game has no notability, even the article recognizes this fact. Calgary 23:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO; fails WP:N and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nothing notable about this game. i ^said 20:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Surely we shouldn't use Wikipedia to publicise a non-notable game.--Bedivere 18:58, 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. --Core desat 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Channels DirecTV Needs

Article is an opinion piece with no usefulness, no references, and an indirect assertion of the importance of the omissions in question at best. Nominating for AfD only because I'm not convinced that CSD G10 can be applied here. Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete; opinion/nonsense article. Dicklyon 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong and speedy delete. Violates POV; while I sympathize with the contents of the article, Wikipedia is not the place for this. --Son 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC) (Update: Son 23:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC))
Delete; Definately not encyclopedic. Only shows opinions of author and editor(s). - Rjd0060 23:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete; It's only the user's opinion, no facts. — TheHoosierState89 ^(talk) 00:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — Coren ^(talk) 00:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete; pov/nonsense --Mhking 03:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete and smite the OA for WP:OWNERSHIP. Which polices does this articles not violate? The articles contains an inherent non-neutral point of view, is completely unverifiable, is pure original research, and violates several sections of WP:NOT—WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE among them. --Farix (Talk) 04:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete; probably violates more than just the aforementioned wikipedia policies, not to mention it is all opinion.--Kyle_(talk) 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete as useless directory, unsourced and POV-filled article. Throw snowballs in as well.JForget 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pointless list.--Bedivere 18:59, 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. --Core desat 06:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Emirate of Albania

Very straightforward - as best as I can determine (with the assistance) of various editors including here, no state or region ever existed under this name. Indeed the author of the article states that No. Only my Phd thesis will be the only coming source as far I know.. Therefore I argue this consitutes original research and novel sythesis. WP:NOT a publisher of original thought. Fredrick day 22:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Further comment I have searched every academic database that I have access to plus made enquiries with friends who are historians, I can still find NO evidence that anything called the "Islamic Emirate of Albania" every existed. --Fredrick day 12:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I see two problems with this article: (1) no trace can be found of an Emirate of Albania: not as part of Rumelia, in its centuries under the Ottomans, nor at any time after they departed; and (2) with all due respect to the author, the article does not seem to meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, so renaming or merging wouldn't seem to me to achieve anything. The supposed Emirate falls firmly into the period covered by the Principality of Albania, which had boundaries established by the Treaty of Bucharest (1913) and also had international recognition by all of the Great Powers. There is worthwhile material to be contributed to Wikipedia about the Albanian civil war of 1914 and about the doings of foreign invaders and the Albanian forces in control of different parts of the country during the First World War, but I should suggest that the Principality of Albania article (an inadequate piece in need of expansion) or else the main Albania article (which has almost nothing for this important period) are really the best places for such material. Xn4 23:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Xn4. Carina22 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete, there may have been declarations and such but they must be established by reliable sources to be verifiable, if we are even to assume the existence of a rump state. Otherwise anything significant about the activities of the Mufti should be in an article on himself or Islam in Albania. --Dhartung | Talk 23:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete it!

Gentelmen. I understand that you did not read of the Islamic Emirate of Albania (maybe the name should be different - since its original was the Ehlil Kijam State), but for coming to your help I suggest you to read in English the book of: Joseph Swire, Albania: The Rise of a Kingdom. As for the so called Principality of Albania, that you are writing above, this principality was concentrated mainly in the city of Vlora, which was captured by the Emirate troops in 1915. The Principality of Albania, was a puppet state set up by the International Committe of Control (Habsburgs and Italians), which after the Young Turk attempt led by major Bekir Gebrene Agha to change the new status quo (with the Serbian invasion of Kosova), lost its authority and Ismail Kemal was forced to resign and flee the country. Parallel with the Islamic Emirate (centered in Tirana, Elbasan, Kavaja, Durres and Berat) in this time we have even the establishment of the Autonomus Republic of Vorio Epirus in South of Albania (by the Greeks) and later the Republic of Korca (by the French). I understand that this piece of Balkanic history is confusing for you, but I suggest you to have more patience and do further readings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by deuleu (talk • contribs) Bigdaddy1981 01:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Delete I can find no mention of this putative state in any historical atlas or in any history of the First World War. Morover, this article is highly historically inaccurate:

First, the Ottomans were out of all of Rumelia save the area around Constantinople before 1914. Second, the Ottomans were not defeated in the part of Rumelia they retained - Anzac troops were landed in the Dardanelles as an effort by Britain to open Russia's supply routes but the invasion proved a failure as German commanded Turks succeeded in keeping the Anzacs contained on the beaches around Suvla Bay. I will see if I can find any references that state that this purported state existed; however, I believe it to be bogus. Bigdaddy1981 00:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Where is the connection here with my previous comments?—Preceding unsigned comment added by deuleu (talk • contribs) Bigdaddy1981 01:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment the connection is with the factual inaccuracy of the article - we are here to discuss the article not just your comments. Also, please so sign your comments (add four tildas) so people know who is commenting - its quite confusing.Bigdaddy1981 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to user space Original research. When the thesis is published, perhaps it can be cited as a source and moved back to mainspace. - Dean Wormer 01:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment In Albania there is a great number of books and literature about this state. Some of them I quote here. Since in English there is not much information about this state, this does not give us the right to simply delete it. deuleu

not much information about this state - none of us can find a single english language source that makes use of this name - I find it highly unlikely it's not mentioned anywhere! --Fredrick day 15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Principality of Albania. A Ph.D. thesis (assuming that the doctorate has been awarded) should be a peer-reviewed source. However this emirate appears only to have claiemd to be a state for a few months. The article would thus appear to be much better as a section in a wider article on the originins of the modern state of Albania. I presume the author of the article is the author of the thesis, in which case he should be able to add a brief summary of the sources relied on for his thesis. Peterkingiron 16:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

but according to his comments, it's not currently been defended or published, so it's OR for the moment. --Fredrick day 16:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is all the more reason for Deudeu (or whoever) to cite his sources in the article. However the impression I get is that the subject was more in the nature of a political movement (in the nature of a political party) than a state. I feel sure that there must be some English language discussion of the subject, if it is genuine. REading Deudeu's comments again, it is possible that my suggested merge target is the wrong one, but I doubt there is any merit in haveing more than one article on the history of Albania 1908-28, or whatever may be regarded as the period of the states formation. Peterkingiron 17:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have privileges at three UK universities and cannot find a single reference to Islamic Emirate of Albania in any academic literature that is searchable via my membership. If such a term was used, I find it very unlikely it has never once been used by an academic source --Fredrick day 17:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Frederick! In the west Albania is less known than are the villages of the United Kingdom. This comes for a number of reasons; but the most important ones are:

a. Albania's isolation during the communist era b. Albania was part of the Ottoman Empire until 1912 and its importance to the westerners was equal with the importance of Kurdistan. Much of the information published on Albania nowadays is either made up by orientalist, or exotic anthropologists that speak about the vendetta of the Catholics in Northern Albania, or historians that deal with the country only briefly. Unfortunately Albania has neither oil, nor was any serious threat or place of interest for the West to be studied thoroughly. Since you have privileges at three UK universities I suggest you to read Joseph Swires book. He deals with the Islamic Emirate at length. He gives to the established state different names, and as a European romantic he is shocked why Albanians did not want to be Europeans but remained loyal to the Turks. Peterkingiron is right when says that 'this emirate appears only to have claiemd to be a state for a few months'. Yes it did not last for more than 9 - 12 months as fas I am aware. However it was a very important development in the history of Albania, since it: a. shocked the imperial plans of the Habsburgs and Italians that created Albania out of 2 Turkish provinces of Toskeria and Gegeria. b. made the project of Prince Wied to fail and make him abandon Albania. c. proved to the Europeans how difficult was to create a nation when it did not exist, by joining three different religious groups (and a number of different ethnies) and naming them to be Albanians. Ismail Kadare, the famous Albanian writer has written a roman on this state, ofcourse attacking it and accussing the Islamist as anti-nationalist, asiatic barbarians, remnants of the sultan and evil doers. While Enver Hoxha proclaimed the Islamic State as a Pughachevist revolution of Albanians against the Western Imperialism. In this link you should find some English information regarding the Islamic Emirate: http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/rotunda/2209/Albania.html

--Deuleu

In the link you provide, can you point out where it uses the term "Islamic Emirate of Albania" as I cannot find it? --Fredrick day 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

ALBANIAN ADMINISTRATORS General Council of the Albanian Senate

The General Council of the Albanian Senate was established by the insurgents and formally ruled all of Albania.

1914 - 1915 Mustafa Ndroqi (Chairman)

             Musa Qazim Effendi
             Qamil Haxhifera, military commander
             Xhenabi Adili
             Qamil Xhaneta "Haxhi Qamili",
             leader of the revolt                           1... - 1915   
             Haxhi Demiri
             Ramadan Gjinali

This government soon lost all importance, some of its members recognizing the authority of Esat Pashë. What remained of it was terminated in jun 1915 by Esat Pashë and the Serbs.

The author above does not use the term Islamic Emirate. He calls it 'General Council of the Albanian Senate' which is nonsense. The people that established the state had an Ottoman - Albanian committe and established a state under the leadership of Musa Qazim Effendi

--Deuleu

A link would be fine but your comment just re-enforces the idea that the name was never used and your use of it is original research and novel synthesis on your part. You have failed to establish that anyone beyond yourself has EVER used the term "islamic Emirate of Albania" --Fredrick day 21:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Surely a hoax. Presumably though if the PhD is accepted by a respected university it becomes a reference that others can quote to restore the article?--Bedivere 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - If Deudeu really has written a doctoral thesis on this subject, he really ought to be able to cite some published references for his assertions. I cannot believe that there is no book in English that covers the subject sufficiently to refer to the subject, even if (in Deudeu's view) its accounbt is not wholly accurate. Otherwise, I have to assume that both the article and Deudeu's alleged doctoral thesis are hoaxes. I note that there is now one reference to a work in a foreign language (presumably Albanian). Nevertheless, I continue to take the view that it would be much better to have a single article dealing with all aspects of the formation of the state of Albania. Only if that becomes unmanageably large is a separate article such as this needed. Peterkingiron 21:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Three titles are mentioned in the article, the first two are in Albanian, the third is Albania: The Rise of a Kingdom by Joseph Swire. He was a young English travel writer, and the book mentioned was published in 1929. Swire was later a schoolmaster at Gordonstoun School and a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, and he lived until 1978. His two books on Albania (the other is King Zog's Albania, 1937) are recommended as among the best reference points in English for this period. Deudeu, I assume you have the 1971 edition of Albania: The Rise of a Kingdom, which page do you wish to refer us to, please? Xn4 03:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. --Haemo 06:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Buses route 1

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1	Articles for deletion/London Buses route 130	Articles for deletion/London Buses route 157
Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1 (2nd nomination)

Renominated, wikipedia does not need articles with , basiclly not alot of text, they should be combined into one, as is being done with the Stagecoach Devon routes for example. Also, i feel if one or two of these members were to cease off of wikipedia,then the articles would never be updated at all, thus misleading people. See wp:not I'm nominating along with this every single london bus route page listed below.

To clarify why im nominating: WP:NOT a travel guide This si why, wiki doesn't need all the infomation on route details etc.

Thenthornthing 23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, as Nominator, as per reasons above. Thenthornthing 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep and Close - There are far too many varied articles here to be batch AfD'd. Many of these lines are either historic or major arteries in the London's transportation system (one of the largest on earth). Nothing has changed since any of previous AfD's, whether they were for one or two lines or the first ill-advised "all London bus routes" Afd. --Oakshade 00:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per WP:NOT#TRAVEL. I think bus routes are in violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Transwiki to WikiTravel might not be possible due to them using a difference license Corpx 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of these aren't just directory listings and some, London Buses route 4 and London Buses route 11 for examples, have encyclopedic history content, well beyond the scope of travel listings or restaurant phone numbers as what WP:NOT#TRAVEL stipulates against. --Oakshade 06:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The route was affected by WW2, as well as some strikes. I would not necessarily call that encyclopedic content. I'd say the same for a bus route from any Metro. Corpx 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would. And that content is certainly beyond what WP:NOT#TRAVEL is meant to avoid (cafe phone numbers, etc.). And that's just one route you mentioned. Others have even more (some much more) encyclopedic content. --Oakshade 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep and close as specified by Oakshade. It never does any good to try to do this--it amounts to a=trying to propose a policy that no bus route can ever be encyclopedic--and there is so such provision for any class of article whatsoever. DGG (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can find any sources giving "significant coverage" to any of these routes, they should be crossed off, but I think a group nom is appropriate so that I do not have to copy/paste my response x times Corpx 05:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment The outcome of the Stagecoach Devon articles' debates was to delete them all, this is exactly the same situation, except it's London ratehr than Exeter, if it werent for the two or three editors these pages would never be updated , and besides which, it's an encyclopedic, BUS ROUTES ARE NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC! Thenthornthing 13:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep this AfD, then, if consensus exists, merge. The nomination for this AfD states that the aim is that "they should be combined into one". So why is this an AfD? From WP:MERGE: "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed.". Candidates for merging should not go be AfD'd, otherwise, we'd lose all the data in them, and there'd be nothing to merge! Speedy keep & close this AfD, and start the merging process. -- simxp (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The right place for information on current bus routes is in the London Transport website. However, this article has a modest amount of historical content, which may be worth preserving and may not be available elsewhere. I suspect that some of these routes in fact have had a longterm stability. Accordingly, a History of London Transport bus routes must just pass the test of being encyclopaedic. If so, the answer is merge, eliminating all excessive detail. Peterkingiron 17:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Many of these articles have far too much content to be merged. If such an action was done, it would be a matter of days before an "Article is too long" tag to be placed onto it. --Oakshade 22:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep for this AfD, then start a new discussion about merger or Transwikification. They are not timetables and provide the historical context of the routes. London Buses route 9 (Heritage) and London Buses route 15 (Heritage), being the last operated by the iconic Routemaster, are notable in their own right. Dbromage [Talk] 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep because of the history. Probably remove the detailed route. --NE2 10:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep notable enough... too big to merge, and too notable to delete. --84.45.219.185 10:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't think IP addresses could vote... Thenthornthing 21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  - As long as they explain their reasoning, anons are perfectly welcome to participate in AFDs, especially since AFD != voting.--69.118.235.97 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    - I thought AFD = reaching consensus, not voting. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 13:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      - IPs can vote, they just can't nominate. AfD = voting, but it is not decided by majority rule. --David Shankbone 04:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep The London Bus routes have a long history and are notable. Alot of the indivisual bus routes are mentioned in books and on websites. It cannot be merged into a single article as it would be too long. However I do agree that the current route section in the articles, detailing each stop, may be considered advertising.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - as per the recent Exeter example. Single bus routes are not notable, and "mentioned" in books and/or websites is not enough. - fchd 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Single bus routes can be notable and many of these are. Whatever happened on the Exeter article (a very small city as compared to London, the most populated city in Europe) does not hold some kind of precedent over other articles. --Oakshade 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability must be established by "significant coverage" from independent sources, which I do not see in these Corpx 22:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

- - Comment' Alot of websites and some books do cover the indivisual bus routes. Some cover them in quite alot of detail. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I still fail to see how these articles anything but travel guides (they all seem to have "Current Route" info) with a few paragraphs of background on when and how the route came into existence. No where do I see any assertion of notability. Quite frankly I fail to see how any bus route could be considered notable, unless the route itself were involved in a major historical event. Being a part of something that happened to the whole of London (i.e. WW2 bombing) does not provide notability for the route itself; Plenty of thing were destroyed during World War II, that in and of itself does not make a subject notable. As far being "the last route to carry the Routemaster", that might be enough to be uniquely notable, but that honor can only fall to one route; the rest must assert notability on their own. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep some redirect Although in this case this can be treated case by case (article by article) so this is a complex vote I'm doing here. To be kept are especially those that have a more lengthy and notable history as well as the most touristic and busier routes. The routes that has virtually nothing or passes only in mostly non-notable areas or is not busy at all should be just redirected to the article that as the list of bus. Notable bus routes for major cities that have significant history or has large purposes should be added too (i.e New York, Toronto, Vancouver, Paris, Hong Kong, etc.).JForget 23:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Looks like a well-ordered collection of trivia. Individual pages fail the notability test. If there's any valuable historical information, put it on the company page and delete the rest. For this number of pages, I wouldn't call that a merge. If he company page gets too big, edit it down and save what's valuable - there's nothing wrong with giving a page a haircut. 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep To anyone who travels about London, each bus route is highly notable.--Bedivere 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment -Yes to anyoen who lives in London, Wikipedia could be used ar more effectively than ridiculous articles about "The route number goes so and so place" Thats not useful its a blooming travel guide! Other websites cater for that, not Wikipedia! Thenthornthing 20:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Excuse my ignorance, but what policy requires an article to be useful?--Bedivere 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment None, but if it's not useful is it really worthy of being on wikipedia? Thenthornthing 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

London is the most traveled to city on earth. If it's notable and useful there, it makes Wikipedia more effective. Plus most of these aren't just route descriptions but include the histories of the lines. --Oakshade 22:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment to closing administrator Since this AfD has begun, there has not by any AfD tag or notice on any of these articles. This is completely in violation of WP:AFD procedures I and II and gave no article readers any indication that these pages were up for deletion. --Oakshade 22:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - ~~There is one one the London Buses route 1 page, and the others are simply ones which would be deleted with it by discussion here.~~ Tags have been placed on all articles now. I do wish people would stop trying to find pety excuses on why there beloved bus articles should be kept. Thenthornthing 07:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem you mention above is better framed in that you are finding petty reasons to have them deleted, and not following procedure when doing so; procedure that is there for very valid reasons. --David Shankbone 12:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

KeepLondon bus routes and their development are historically important, and as to how London developed as a city, influencing and reflecting living, work and leisure patterns.KTo288 00:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Just would like to note that nobody has yet provided any coverage from significant sources as to why these are notable. Also, this AFD should stay open for 5 more days since none of the articles were tagged Corpx 02:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - Articles like these are *exactly* why people love Wikipedia, and predicting that if people leave then articles will fall apart is the spooky "What if people stopped caring about Wikipedia" argument that is pretty tiresome, and fails the WP:CRYSTAL test. 90% of Wikipedia articles are typically kept up with by a handful of people; that doesn't mean other people won't join them at some point. Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest. --David Shankbone 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - It was stated by the proposer that "I'm nominating along with this every single london bus route page most of which are included below" but that lists just 30 pages. There are over 300 individual London Bus Route articles and each should be properly tagged if they are to be deleted, not just an arbitary 10%. It would simply be nonsensical to merge them by company. London bus routes are not deregulated like the rest of the country but are controlled by TfL who award the contracts. Operating companies can change every few years whereas the route numbers change rarely. Page94 09:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment -Changed as per above. Thenthornthing 10:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment why have you picked these particular London bus route pages for deletion? Page94 12:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Could the nominator clarify their reasoning for me? I fail to see in their reason for deleting at the top of the page a single policy that these articles breach. Which section of WP:NOT do these articles fail? "wikipedia does not need articles with , basiclly not alot of text"? Aren't these usually called "stubs"? Further, which speedy deletion criteria are you using as a reason to speedy this? Hammer Raccoon 11:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

They're failing WP:N in lacking "significant coverage" from independent sources Corpx 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

keepAndycjp 13:44, 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. The discussion hinged around whether the subject was notable and the Community decided, by a very clear majority, that he wasn't. It should be noted that six of the delete comments came after the sourcing of the article had been improved. TerriersFan 23:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khalid Latif

This person simply had his name mentioned in 2 separate articles. Furthermore, the categories titled "Impressions" and "Rumors of Being Hip" are obvious jokes. For example, Mohsen Malik is simply a student who has no known celebrity status or merit. Therefore his opinion should not matter. Likewise "black wispy hair" is simply unneccessary. The article was obviously done to praise Khalid Latif, as seen by the quotes in Article in Newsday and Article in Daily News, whereas articles that have merit for wikipedia must be objective. Also "He will continue to serve the more than 1,000 Muslims at NYU but will give up his work at Princeton" calls for predicting the future, something Wikipedia cannot support. The only real knowledge gained from this article is what Khalid is doing career-wise. However, Wikipedia articles should not be done to accomodate the life of every individual that has a job. Khalid Latif has done nothing extraordinary to earn a biography in his honor. This article does not have enough content that makes it worthy enough to remain a Wikipedia page Cookiebeast 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Although I found his bio interesting, he doesn't seem particularly notable at this time. Being the first chaplain of a particular faith to a single police department, even in an important city, doesn't seem like it comes close to WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 00:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - these two links in the EL section [1][2] - both news reports of which Khalid Latif is the main subject appears to indicate some degree of notability. a quick google search unearths these news mentions, supplementing the case for notability [3] [4][5][6]. the article itself needs substantial cleanup using these sources. ITAQALLAH 00:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Keep per ItaqAllah, multiple non-trivial reliable sources were found: [7],[8]. Article should be cleaned up and sourced with refs. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Deleteper WP:OR unless sourced. The issue here is that nothing within the article itself is sourced. Pages where the content is origional reserach should be deleted. Bsides this version is poorly written, and if kept, needs a complete rewrite.--Sefringle^Talk 03:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete No real notablility here. Dman727 03:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete per very narrow scope of notability. I really dont think someone known only in a limited area should warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia Corpx 04:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep The Muslim chaplain at two very important universities is notable. Anything further can be dealt with by editing. Sefringle, despite his experience, is simply wrong when he says articles can be deleted if the article is unsourced. The standard is sourceable, and attempts to say otherwise have been repeatedly and soundly defeated by consensus. I don't see the point of asserting that policy here is not what it is, but what you want it to be. DGG (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - the article in its current shape is poor, but there i sourcing available. -- Whpq 10:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
DeleteThe former chaplain of two MSA's is not important enough to merit an individual page. While this gentleman's accomplishments have been noteworthy in a small community, he is not scholarly or notable on a large enough scale.holla_islam 16:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC) — holla islam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: don't you feel that these links ([9][10] [11][12][13][14] ) fulfil the criteria specified by WP:BIO? ITAQALLAH 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because none of the sources are within the article, or at least the content of this particular version is origional research.--Sefringle^Talk 01:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

see DGG's comment above, which is quite correct. by the way, "unsourced" does not always mean "origional [sic] research". ITAQALLAH 01:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

- Comment: ITAQALLAH, While I do respect your opinion please: "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability-" Is an article that simply notes what job an individual attains trivial? "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. " Is attaining a position in which you earned a master's degree for a recognized awards. If Khalid becoming a chaplain is an honor, then shouldn't every teacher or MBA earn a wikipedia article? "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Here's where it gets tricky. I'd say no because he is the second. If he was the first Muslim chaplain, that may mean something. However, if we allow the second person to achieve an article, then why not the third? or the tenth? I'd like to touch base with a few of the 'creative professional' guidelines as well. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." Would you classify several articles as 'widely cited?' "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Khalid did not do that. "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." Khalid definitely has none of these. Cookiebeast 23:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC) — Cookiebeast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - WP:BIO offers multiple indicators of notability (see the criteria here); you don't need to meet all of them. for the purposes of an article on this individual, we should be expecting multiple non-trivial reliable source coverage. trivial, in this case, means to be mentioned in passing, or weak depth of coverage. these articles ([15][16]) are very lengthy, and focus entirely on Khalid Latif. the other articles linked above, while shorter, still have Latif as the subject of discussion. in my view, that is enough to meet the specification that "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." ITAQALLAH 01:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: ITAQALLAH, you pasted it yourself: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Please note the last part 'independent of the subject' You just posted 2 articles affiliated with Princeton. This is hardly unbiased as it is a place of Khalid Latif's employment. Similarly, the original article has references to NYU articles and the ICNYU (Islamic Center of NYU) It's their job to make Khalid look good. What organization in their right mind would hire someone then on their website write something defaming him. It doesn't matter if they are 'lengthy' because Princeton made them lengthy to make Khalid look good and as a result make Princeton look good. Encyclopedia articles must be objective and not just a cut and paste job of PR and publicity articles. Cookiebeast 01:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

such articles are perfectly acceptable for details about someone's career. The Daily Princetonian is an independent student newspaper, & a RS. But if you doubt them, surely for notability, the NY News and the NY Times are good enough, unless you wish to discount anything published in NYC also as not being independent enough. The sources asked for have been found, and that ought to settle the question.DGG (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep per comments by Itaqallah and DGG. Passes notability criteria and although sources are not cited, it does appear (from reading some of the links given by Itaqallah - which I've added to the article) to be sourced and not OR. → AA ^(talk) — 08:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please be the volunteer who will move the list of deletion discussions from the active page to the /Old page Cookiebeast 23:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete What is said about him does not add up to notability.--Bedivere 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not only is there a serious lack of notability (Muslim chaplain at "two very important universities"? Which, praytell, are the unimportant ones?), but the bottomline is that this article was written soley to be self-serving. Anyone who saw the first version of the page would notice the blatant inclusion of a friend's name in the "Impressions" section and the "Rumors of Being Hip" section that was very tongue-in-cheek. This isn't the first time someone who has deemed himself "something of a big deal" has made (or had a friend make them) a wikipedia page purely for bragging rights. I'm rather surprised to see people jumping forward to defend this particular page, completely ignoring the fact that this person is no more notable than a school nurse who may have been profiled in a community paper (For those insisting the larger NY papers are more than enough, what you might fail to realize is how much those same articles go to show the very limited scope of "importance." What do they mean or how do they influence anyone only a few miles from New York City, or even a few blocks from NYU??). As much as I might like to think that such contributions to communities and people in them are "important" on a small, narrow scale, they simply do not add up to notability, and allowing someone to keep a page written solely for bragging rights among friends is something of a slap in the face to all other people in the same "select community" level of importance who wouldn't stoop to that level. I see this debate was included in the category of "Islam-related articles nominated for deletion", however, this is not an issue of an Islam-related article. This person does not define any part of the faith, and to confuse dismissing this article with the notion that any part of or position related to the Islamic faith is trivial would be a dangerous thing. Faith aside, this person (or any person in his position regardless of beliefs) simply does not meet the criteria for an article, lacks notability, lacks proper sourcing (although this is the point that is most in debate, I would ask everyone to consider what would happen if the people who frequent wikipedia suddenly found out that any mention of them in any non-objective article they could dig up would be enough to get them their own page. ...At least the appeal of "bragging rights" would plummet, I suppose.) and the article should not be kept. --S.Reemas, August 23, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.74.41.252 (talk) 21:01, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
Delete, the roles taken are no more significant than that of a local priest, rabbi, iman............. I'd expect trivial local coverage for all of these, but notability requires more of those and I believe the same is required here. Nuttah68 10:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and Nuttah68 not notable. Harlowraman 17:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Almost every chaplain would have these qualifications and coverage in local media and university newspapers. The article is still trash to boot (which doesn't justify deletion, but certainly alleviates the dirty feeling). Cool Hand Luke 08:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO. Many people get a mention in local papers, and have important jobs; that does not automatically qualify them for mention in an encyclopedia, otherwise we would have a bio article on every fireman, police officer, priest, teacher, doctor etc... on the planet. The notability bar is set higher than this. EyeSerene^TALK 08:48, 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 no consensus. It may be a better idea to list these individually if these are ever renominated in the future. --Core desat 06:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Portuguese Americans

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}}

There are almost 200 countries in the world, not to mention distinct ethnic groups, with almost 40,000 "X residing in Y combinations". Lists like this serve little purpose and ultimately become dumping grounds for WP:COI redlinks. Feel free to use {{subst:User:Richfife/template:ethnicityafdprotest1}} ~~~~ to indicate your displeasure that I haven't been able to find and list all variants at once. Richfife 21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I also nominate these for the same reasoning:

Keep - Firstly I don't like mass AfD nominations because I think each article should be examined on its own merits. Secondly subjects like Asian Americans, Chinese Americans, and Korean Americans are well-written about and are notable topics. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

They may well be well written about somewhere, but not here. These are just lists. (Unrelated to keep or delete vote) If I nominate one at a time, I get accused of favoritism before I have a chance to nominate the others, so I did a bunch at once. - Richfife 22:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If these were nominated individually, people would say, "Keep, no reason to single this one out." Carina22 23:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Firstly, I must say that I don't find the mass-grouping to be very efficient due to the vast difference between some of the articles (for example, I don't think List of Chilean Jews can be judged on the same grounds as List of Asian Americans). Still, that being said, it seems that the nominator's argument is that the general intersection between a person's ethnicity and nationality is either trivial or does not serve any organizational purposes. With this I strongly disagree. Many ethnic groups are connected by more than a common origin, but in addition share similar customs, culture, etc., which carries over when communities of these ethnic groups form in different countries, only to form an entirely new cultural layer. People who belong to a specific ethnic group are indeed connected, and grouping them by nationality, along with organizing them geographically, organizes them based on a common culture that in many cases does not extend to people of the same ethnicity, but a different nationality. Now, I am not saying that these intersections are always appropriate. For example, I hardly see the need for a List of Swedish Nigerians, but it should be clear where the line is drawn, and that groups such as Korean Americans, Chinese Americans and the like do indeed have enough common ground to warrant such a list. Any separate, clearly trivial intersections should be nominated separately. Calgary 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, unfortunately, the U.S. is an ethnic minded society. I guess that is why you have the Italian-Americans, African-Americans and so on. People identify themselves with their ethnicity and therefore in my humble opinion, these lists are useful for those who wish to know the accomplishments of the people who share a common ethnicity. Tony the Marine 01:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep, although the U.S. is becoming more and more homogenous every year, it's great to have a place where people can document their heritage. In my opinion, the same can be said for countries like Canada, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, Argentina etc. Alexander_Lau 23:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep and relist. I think these lists should be considered on their own merits, or in groupings with more commonalities. For example, within List of Latin American Jews there are links to lists of Mexican, Peruvian, and Venezuelan Jews. Listing all the lists of Latin American Jews in one AfD would make sense. Including lists of ethnic Americans (United Statesians) with a few (but not all) of the lists of Latin American Jews unnecessarily clouds the issue. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep all That 200 x 200 = 40,000 insight is nice, and so is the "ethnicity protest" that we should feel free to use. Maybe that reasoning is okay in Great Britain, but over here, we're all Americans, and we look at ethnicity as a matter of pride. And the hell of it is that we celebrate St. Patrick's Day, Cinco de Mayo, Columbus Day, Martin Luther King Day, plus a lot of other ethnic celebrations without worrying about whether we're welcome. We're proud of the Brits too, what with Thanksgiving and all, but the 4th of July is the best holiday of all. Mandsford 02:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, nobody is doing away with ethnicity metions. That is why categories and articles exist. What this nomination seems to be about is a listing of potentially unrelated people asserting pseudo-connective notability they all share for this relationship. There is no intent to "erase" the pride of ethnicity. Bulldog123 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete excessive overcategorisation. Bigdaddy1981 04:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - also, what on earth is the criteria? One person might appear on scores of lists. Is one grandparent enough, or one great-grandparent? Or is it claimed heritage? Bigdaddy1981 06:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete all. For example, on List of Swedish Americans, list members Robert Englund, Jake Gyllenhaal and James Franco have absolutely nothing to do with each other, save for the fact that Franco has a single grandfather of Swedish descent, Englund has some undefined Swedish ancestry, and Gyllenhaal's great-great-grandfather was Swedish. This isn't a very strong connection to tie people into on a list. Yes, I'm aware that there are some Swedish-Americans whose heritage is reflected in their work - perhaps writers or the like - but these can be mentioned on the main article, Swedish American, along with maybe a handful of names to illustrate some examples of notable Swedish-Americans. Such a comprehensive list serves little to no purpose. The same is true for the other lists. Mad Jack 04:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete too much over-categorization of racial/national intersections. The inclusion criteria is way too loose Corpx 04:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to divide the question (sorry, it's the parliamentarian in me - for simplicity's sake, let's call it a procedural keep). These articles should be considered separately and on their own merits, rather than as a large group that does not take into account all of their differences. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 04:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete all For one thing, I don't find any of the !keep arguments convincing. "Keep because you should nominate them by one by one" is a request for shrubbery, essentially. If the nom missed a few nominations, saying "KEEP BECAUSE YOU MISSED SOME!" also isn't convincing. They'll simply go in another nom. Finally, the most famed argument of "improve don't delete" is getting more and more nonsensical. Take a look at the Brazilian list, for example. It's been sitting in its same horrid state for, according to the tag, what appears like half a year. This is an indication that nobody really cares about some obscure religious/ethnic list enough to work on it, which tells us that its encyclopedic value is "interesting" to a "select minority." However, we generally leave out information that doesn't attest to a person's biographical notability. If ethnic background DOES have relevance to a person's occupation or biography, then it will be mentioned in the article along with an explanation of why it is important. On bulletin lists like this, there is no room for explanation, and so no room for notability checks. Hence, they shouldn't exist. Bulldog123 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep all, speedy close and list separately. This sort of a nomination is plain wrong. It amounts to trying to say that NO article on List of [nationality]-[other nationality] can be notable, and there is no such policy anywhere in Wikipedia. Start by instead nominating one or two articles that you have individually examined, and can show specifically why you think they are certainly unencyclopedic, and go by what the community thinks on them. DGG (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 07:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Firstly, I have no doubt that a few of those lists are not notable, but I can't agree that they are all non-notable - which is one of the reasons why I think these mass AfD nominations are counter-productive. We might start getting votes to keep these, delete those. Then the closing admin has to comb through all the votes and count which article exactly had how many votes to delete or keep. Secondly, the fact that some of these lists may be deleted does not mean that they should all be deleted. The fact of the matter is that some of these demographics are more notable and have been written about more so than others. Thirdly, I have no idea why it is a reason to delete any one of these lists just because it may be unclear who is considered, for example, Swedish American. Whether or not the subject of Swedish Americans is a notable topic, this I am not personally sure. But if it is unclear whether or not Person X is Swedish American, then you bring it up in the Talk page. Is there some policy that I'm not aware of which states that if it is unclear to a few editors how a list or article ought to be written, then we delete it? To the best of my knowledge, the question of whether or not people like Jake Gyllenhaal should be in the List of Swedish Americans is not a criteria for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I just brought Gyllenhaal up as an example to illustrate the fact that no one in the section of, say, "actors" under "Swedish Americans" has anything strongly in common enough with one another to warrant joint inclusion on a list. It's a piece of trivia for pretty much all of them. (Except, I suppose, people like Ingrid Bergman, who was born in Sweden and acted in Swedish films, but in that case, the nexus of her notability is being a Swedish actress, not being Swedish-American) Mad Jack 18:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Such lists maintain racial/ethnic divides in society. They emphasize the differences and not the cohesion. The content is so broad that hundreds or even thousands could be added. Ancient ethnicity is not a particularly relevant discriminant in a multicultural nation. WWGB 14:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Racial prejudice is not going to go away just because some people pretend there is no racial differences amongst people. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ancient, current, or perceived ethnicity is extremely relevant in America (eg - as above). But how is political correctness relevant to a keep/delete recommendation here? — Becksguy 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - there may be certain lists that aren't as relevant as let's say 'German Americans' or 'Irish Americans'. The contributions made by first and second generation Americans from places like Germany, Ireland, England, Italy, etc. are vast and early and should be documented. With that being said, I don't think you can allow one group and not another. It would be sad to see this leave. Alexander_Lau 14:48:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep To relist seperately. i ^said 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Kappa 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Since most of the proposed deletions come from Lists of Americans, do you suggest deleting every list on Lists of Americans? If yes, with this reasoning, do you mean to delete every list of ethnic/regional/national people such as List of Poles, Lists of Jews, List of French people, etc.? After all, the collection of "List of X Americans" is merely an "organized list of notable Americans" instead of, in your view, "X residing in Y combinations". Count de Chagny 01:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Count de Chagny 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete not only does this list people who are by no means american, like Tixa Penicheiro, but also people with very faint and unsourced links to Portugal, besides, lista are next to useless, categories exist for a reason. Galf 09:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - very similar to what 'Hong Qi Gong' stated, then take it to the Talk area. Delete 'Tixa Penicheiro' if you feel that person is inappropriately being listed. Alexander_Lau 11:40:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Categories are plain lists of names, which are next to useless compared to annotated and structured lists of names. They exist for the reason that manual lists are not automatically generated, and even something as pathetic as a category list is better than nothing. Kappa 07:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete These lists fill up Wiki with useless information. A major problem in the ethnicity articles is having these sorts of lists of everyone who is part of said ethnicity.----^DarkTea © 11:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The United States is probably one of the few societies that put a pathetically large ammount of burocracy to divide their population by ethnicity and Wikipedia must reflect that. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why everyone thinks this but where has anyone suggested we remove all references to ethnicity from wikipedia? The argument for deletion doesn't consist of "ethnicity is irrelevant" but "these lists are unmaintainable and give the wrong idea." As described above, anybody can be placed on these lists no matter how distant their background is, only if some source describes them as such. And as we all know, you can find just about anything on the internet. Another problem, like in the Latin American lists, is that...there simply aren't sources (especially not in English) to use. And so digging up the most periphery mentions of it to use as sources don't establish why it is notable. On the other hand, categories do and will always exist for ethnicity, and will be justified by a mention of the ethnicity in the article, likely along with its relevance. You can't do that for these lists. Bulldog123 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with some of these lists, List of Chilean Jews for example, is an abundance of red links and a paucity of blue links. If editors don't think these people are notable enough to write Wikipedia articles about, they're not notable enough to be added to lists such as these. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bulldog - I had no idea that difficulty in maintainence is criteria for deletion. Care to point out where this is stated? And yeah, you can find just about anything on the internet. But that's why we're supposed to be using reliable sources. You can read WP:Reliable sources to get an idea what kinds of sources are considered reliable. So a blog of some 15-year old claiming that such-and-such is Italian American should not mean that the person gets added to the Italian American list. And it's possible that for some of the lists above, no reliable sources exist as references to keep the list populated. In which case, sure, let's delete them. But firstly, how about bringing it up in a Talk page? "Can editors please find reliable sources to back up the claim that such-and-such is Swedish American?" Has this been tried? And secondly, this affirms why these lists ought not be listed all together in one single AfD. Some of them are going to be more notable and more written about than others - this is a very simple concept and it really shouldn't be difficult to understand at all. I mean, topics like "French Americans"? I really don't know how notable that is. But I've personally read multiple books specifically about Asian Americans and Chinese Americans, and they usually make mention of notable persons in these demographics. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It can be if consensus finds it so. For the kazillionth time, the categories are not, and will never be, considered for deletion. So all these arguments about Asian ethnicity being relevant are pointless. The best place for that type of stuff is the article Asian American and a relevant category. Bulldog123 23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If these lists can be deleted based on the argument that it's difficult to maintain (who qualifies to be added, what sources to use as references, etc), then I don't see why similar categories cannot be deleted for the same reasons. And lists can do more than what categories can do. The lists can group people by occupation, for example, and give short descriptions of why they're notable. Not to mention lists can include red links. Categories cannot do any of the above. Morever, AfDs are not supposed to be binding polls. Technically speaking, closing admins are to consider the arguments presented and decide for themselves if the articles nominated should or should not be deleted. And what I'm pointing out is that difficulty in article maintainence is not criteria for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

keep bad nomination. Not legitimate concerns.--Sefringle^Talk 03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep all and speedy close. I am extremely uncomfortable with mass deletions/discussions. I can understand why the nominator proposed this—his concern about perceived bias. However, the perceived advantage here is massively outweighed by the disadvantages. The discussion has already become very hard to follow, including comments about lists in general, ethnicity, ethnic lists, hyphenated-American lists, maintainability of these lists, specific articles (as to included or not included articles), who belongs on which list (and how many), and even a few specific persons. In other words, the discussion has become very unfocused. The lists in question seem to range from badly written and maintained to well done. And, according to some comments, range in notability also. If a list has maintainability, quality, notability, or any other appropriate criteria issues, that discussion belongs on its talk page, or on an individual AfD discussion page, not in an unfocused group deletion discussion page. Never mind that the closing admin will have to deal with the nightmare of trying to sort out which comments belong to which article, subset of articles, all of them, or none of them (being too general or off topic) and then try to look for a consensus on each article. Or even worse, decide to delete all of them as a group, as some editors are urging. Inevitability, there will be complaints of unfairness, and lack of input to the process, and rightly so. I just don’t see how this process can be applied thoughtfully in such a short time across all these articles. The process of AfD nominating and discussing an article is like placing it on academic probation. Improve, or out. The article can be improved while the discussion proceeds, which is part of the process. How can a group of articles realistically be sufficiently improved to meet the concerns in such a short time? Each article should be dealt with individually and unhurriedly, following process, so that we end up with better articles, not less articles. Discussion about lists in general should not appear here, or on individual articles, but in some other, more abstract forum. There is no policy against lists in general. In fact, some editors say that they keep laundry lists from cluttering up the parent article. I’m very concerned about healthy babies being thrown out with the potentially moribund babies in the bath water of what feels a bit like anti-list deletionism. So lets speedy close this discussion without prejudice. If there is a concern with an individual article, the editor with that concern nominates it for speedy, prod, or AfD as appropriate, so it can follow process properly and fairly. IMO. — Becksguy 11:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - we already have, for example Category:Portuguese-Americans, and there is no possible way to link the members of this list together, except that one of their ancestors was Portuguese. ugen64 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep- The list is informative and just blatantly should not be deleted. Socom49 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY --Shirahadasha 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Close this discussion with no prejudice toward future individual nominations. Previous mass nominations composed of similar articles have failed to gain consensus due to the differences from one article to the next. It is therefore wiser to consider these articles individually. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Many of these lists cover highly notable topics that are widely written about. Ethnicity is very important to many people and should not be disregarded in a cavalier fashion. Anyway, this AfD covers a heterogeneous collection; why not restrict it to people from the USA?--Bedivere 19:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep I can see what the nominator intends, and I agree with those intentions, either keep all or delete all, however I see he has refrained from nominating Lists of African Americans probably on the grounds that such a nomination would be divisive. However the same logic applies and to delete any one of these lists, sets a precedent that all such lists should be deleted.KTo288 01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Response There is no such thing as precedent in deletion discussions. All articles are judged based on Wikipedia policy and so forth, and every discussion exists independent of every other discussion. The outcome of one discussion does not necessarily have any bearing on separate discussions of similararticles (see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Calgary 02:50, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Bilton (Big Cheese)

This person isn't remotely notable. The article even calls him a "minor celebrity". Katharineamy 21:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete I read of this case at the time. He's not notable, known for a single event and has no long-term historical notability. WP:BLP applies here too, we should have some regard for Bilton's privacy as he is a relatively unknown person. --Malcolmxl5 23:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable defendant (are we to have articles on all the dirtbags who use unusual defences now?) As an aside, is his nickname really "Bilton Big Cheese Queen of Striptease"? The article seems quite insistent that he's a man after all. Bigdaddy1981 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete because any notability is conferred to a town and nothing more Corpx 04:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete A minor celebrity is by definition somewhat notable. I don't see him as any sort of celebrity.--Bedivere 19:18, 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. --Core desat 06:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Mol

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}}

Contested prod. Biography of a writer whose sole claim to fame seems to be a suspect autobiography and a recent arrest for infecting nearly 20 women with HIV Sethacus 21:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Simon Mol has another claim to fame. He was granted the prestigious award "Anti-Fascist of the Year" in 2003, and was a long time human rights activist specializing in anti-racism. Graham Wellington

Question - is the award really prestigious? I can find only two references to it on google. Bigdaddy1981 03:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator and prodder, per WP:NOTE, as well as WP:NOT#NEWS. Serious BLP issues as well. Take those out you have nothing to substantiate an article. Prod was removed by anon, reason being that the subject is mentioned in several Polish publications,possibly due to the HIV story. No reliable sources have popped up, as of yet.--Sethacus 21:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete If what the one source we can read in English says is true Mr. Mol is a very evil person. However, even so as a person whose only claim to fame is being arrested (and not yet tried) he is not notable for a WP article. I also find the source a bit suspect since it seems to have a racist agenda. Steve Dufour 02:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable dirtbag. Bigdaddy1981 04:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This article has been around for eight months and this is the first time it has been AfD. During that time, several Wikipedians (at least 15 different people) have made improvements to the article. In accordance with WP:GOODFAITH and acknowledging the community's efforts, I think we should keep the article. Truthanado 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment No one has done anything substantial to this article in over two months, and the last was the article's creator. As far as AGF, I and others have assumed that every good faith effort has been made to justify this article's existence. And, looking, even the Polish Wiki has verifiability problems with their version.--Sethacus 02:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Lack of activity can be an indication of an article's stability; it has nothing to do with notability. If the articles on Albert Einstein, Nikolai Lenin or Mao Zedong went unchanged for 2 months, it would not mean that these individuals are not notable. It is fact that several Wikipedians have made positive contributions to this article, increasing its size from a few hundred to more than 3000 characters, and we would be remiss if we did not take that into consideration when reaching a consensus about whether to keep or delete this article. Truthanado 23:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment the fact that a number of wikipedians worked on this article does not confer notability to Mr Mol. If he were notable, and the article established this notability (as, say, the article on Einstein does) then its dormant status would not be relevant. Bigdaddy1981 00:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment the difference between the two cases is this. Einstein and the others are unquestionably notable. You walk down the street and say "Einstein" to someone, they're highly likely to know who you're talking about. You say "Simon Mol" to someone, they're liable to look at you funny. Einstein, Lenin and Mao are talked about in classrooms. Simon Mol isn't. Eistein, Lenin and Mao have numerous books written about them. Simon Mol doesn't. The similarity is that all these articles have, for the moment, reached the point in which no new information can be added. The difference is the watershed mark of notability, which this article has not achieved. Even the original author's edit summary, on the creation of the article, reads: (article about a journalist, notable in Poland for spreading HIV, gcheck welcomed). Not "notable journalist" or "notable author". Notable for one incident. In Poland. And, as I stated before, even Polish Wiki has problems with their version.--Sethacus 02:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per Sethacus. —זכי ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 08:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep The wiki community has been building this article in good faith for over eight months. It is both neutral and unbiased. Simon Mol's trial is ongoing and more information about his alleged crimes will likely surface in the near future. The article should not be deleted. Graham Wellington

KEEP- This is a true article of something that actually happened, why in the world should it be deleted, is someone trying to cover up the truth? It makes absolutely no sense to me.— Czerwony (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This article should be displayed to the public so similar acts do not occur. There is no reason to repress and censor such terrible news at the hand of other peoples' lives which were ruined through such emotional and psychological damage. A criminal's acts are not out-weighed by how many anti-fascist articles or poems he/she had published.Rebio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Bigdaddy1981 05:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment please sign your comments using four tildes ~~tildas~~. Ooops Bigdaddy1981 03:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we make them waltzing Ma tildas? Steve Dufour 12:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment to the keep voters. Again, and this is the last time I'm going to say this: Wikipedia is NOT for news. Let me give you an example of an article that, on the surface, appeared to be news, but transcended that:Larisa Arap. A news story, yes, but one that has reached the Americans, the British, the French, the Germans, the Czechs. Mol's story is not going anywhere outside Poland. I'm coming dangerously close to adding WP:SOAP to the list of this article's offenses, based on the undue weight given this man's crimes, the edit summary at creation and some of the keep votes. Wikipedia is not the place to gather people around and say,pardon me, "Look what this nigger did!" If this had been an article on a famous writer, with references pointing to that, that just happened to have been arrested for a heinous crime, I might give it a second look. But, not a Goddamn single person supporting this article has come forward with any evidence to suggest that he is known outside of this crime. And, yes, it is a heinous crime, one for which he'll be brought before the greatest judge of all, God. We are not here, on Wikipedia, to make 'examples' of people. This is news, local news and should be treated as such. The global community hasn't stood up to take notice and neither should Wikipedia.--Sethacus 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Simon Mol is a well known European human rights activist who specialized in anti-racism and anti-fascism. He also published poetry and directed several plays that exposed the plight of African refugees. Graham Wellington 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply none of this has remotely been put into the article, Graham, or should I call you 67.83.219.204? [17] As I recall, you removed the prod, citing "numerous Polish publications". Where are they and do they justify notability outside his crimes? Why haven't they been integrated into the article?--Sethacus 20:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply Simon Mol is a notable writer who has published numerous anti-fascist anti-racist poems and narratives. And yes, he is also an alleged criminal. Many notable writers have also been accused of crimes. Had you not deliberately targeted this article for deletion, those facts would have been added in due time to the article. Polish newspapers don't count as legitimate sources? That is a bigoted view. It is becoming clear that you cherry picked this article due to the nature of Simon Mol's alleged crime. Graham Wellington 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Subject gained significant notoriety in Poland and has been mentioned and covered extensively by Polish media.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not for news. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep The reasons for wanting this article deleted are politicaly motivated.--Moerwijk 14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Moerwijk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- What makes you think so? — Kpalion^(talk) 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the purported motivation? Bigdaddy1981 16:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Claims of "infecting nearly 20 women with HIV" are marginally notable, especially as the subject became so notorious in Poland. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Rename to something like HIV scandal in Poland, [[Category:HIV/AIDS]]. This person is completely non-notable, neither as writer nor as journalist, unless you're going to introduce common criminals and hustlers into Wikipedia now. greg park avenue 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Does not add up to real notability.--Bedivere 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per above. Tazmaniacs 01:51, 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. The consensus is that the new sources offered do not meet the standard for WP:RS, and that the article thus fails WP:N. Xoloz 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CMS Made Simple

Originally prod deleted, but was contested at deletion review and restored. I have to agree with the original prod that the article fails WP:NOTABILITY. The sources that were brought up in deletion review all appear to be blog or catalog entries of one form or another which can't confer notability. --Farix (Talk) 21:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 22:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless sources are found to give notability Corpx 04:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per sources posted in the DRV: [18] [19] [20] JulesH 13:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't know how good a source Blogsweek is; the others seem OK.--Bedivere 19:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as insufficiently notable. No non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. I do not believe the three sources provided in the DRV qualify as references that have an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. In fact, I don't even think they meet the standards for external links, much less those for reliable sources. -- Satori Son 19:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete purely nn and darn close to spam - had been deleted speedy as spam before, prod deletions are regularly overturned at DRV as a courtesy - just as any one editor can contest a prod. Carlossuarez46 01:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 17:17, 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. --Core desat 06:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons Used on 24 (TV)

Just a list of different large weapons used by the terrorists in 24. All of the information is better and more relevantly contained elsewhere, and the scope of this list doesn't restrict the inclusion of every firearm, knife, or makeshift blunt object used in the show in this list. Almost a case of nipping WP:LISTCRUFT in the bud. fuzzy510 21:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete fantastic example of what Wikipedia isn't. --Oscarthecat 21:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete No merge necessary, because this article just duplicates what is already contained in the other articles about the show. Edison 22:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nuclear football? What on Earth is a nuclear football? And why are the terrorists trying to obtain the president's nuclear football? Why does the president even have a nuclear football? I'm sorry, I can't make head or tail of this article, but because it is simply a very, very, very vague plot summary, should be deleted (WP:NOT#PLOT) Calgary 23:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Nuclear_football. Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Grudging Delete - per nom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokizzy (talk • contribs)
Strong Delete This is guide level content, just like weapons used in a video game would be Corpx 04:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Without prejudice for a good article, this is useless, and is indeed a random approach to a possibly important topic. Better to start over in a more comprehensive way. DGG (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete, flies in the face of WP:FICT. Axem Titanium 20:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Too weird!--Bedivere 19:34, 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 To avoid conflicts of interest and self-referencing, other wikipedias are not considered notable merely because of kinship with this project. No other evidence presented, and consensus is clear. Xoloz 15:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assamese Wikipedia

This article has no third-party sources. Without third party sources, it's unverifiable. It contains no claim to notability under the relevant standard. What content there is seems to be some sort of auto-generated stub (judging by the close similarity in format to other articles on wikipedias). Being a wikipedia does not except it from our normal policies and guidelines on what merits inclusion. deranged bulbasaur 21:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete There is no inherent notability for everything with "Wiki" in its name, and this so-far slight encyclopedia presents no evidence it has achieved notice beyond a few editors. If it is written about by independent and reliable sources, then the article can be re-created. Edison 22:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment This shouldn't be an article, but maybe it would make sense to move it to project-space?--P4k 23:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Unverifiable? All you have to do is look at it. Surely every Wikipedia deserves an article on every other one.--Bedivere 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This Wikipedia is not notable. Atropos 07:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 17:13, 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. --Core desat 06:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Felons

Written like an advert, only claim to notability is the winning of the TFM Unsigned Competition, which is run by 96.6 TFM Radio and the five Tees Valley Youth Services, according to a web page. This competition is not "major", and thus does not qualify for the clause in WP:BAND. Fails WP:BAND. Panoptical 20:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Utterly non-notable band whose promotional efforts are probably better served by Myspace. TheLetterM 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Get back to us once your music gets you signed. SolidPlaid 03:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Lacks notability.--Bedivere 19:36, 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 keep with editing. ¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 11:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winflash

Contested speedy. An educational software program family from a company named Open Window Software. Google reveals: [21] I thought it warranted discussion as opposed to speedy deletion. Samir 20:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep it's an ace program actually. Still, the article is a bit of an ad and maybe needs toning down.--Bedivere 19:38, 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. --Core desat 06:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hina Chavda

This article sounds like an advert, the text has been directly copied in some parts, and indirectly copied in others from 2 web sites (and some of it may be OR). Furthermore, only 1 significant edit has ever been made (the first one), back in December 2006, suggesting that the author has long since abandoned this article. All the other edits have been for maintainence. Fails WP:BIO. Panoptical 20:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as non-notable spam. Springnuts 20:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Not an actual biographical article, just a paragraph encouraging people to join her school. And I don't see any grounds for a biographical article, as there is no assertion of notability. Calgary 23:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable.--Bedivere 19:39, 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. --Core desat 06:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Schaefer, Dan Pinzon

This previously speedily deleted article (for non-notable bio) has been reinstated with a claim that it is a comic book. I suspect it may be a hoax. A google search of the united terms finds nothing. Moonriddengirl 20:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Still delete. Why not speedy it as patent nonsense? Leibniz 20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I considered it, but didn't because of this: "This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases." If somebody comes along to CSD on the blatant grounds, I certainly won't object to the rapid closure of the AfD. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:V. Borderline nonsense is obviously not patent nonsense, and requires consensus to delete. --Dhartung | Talk 20:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per "DJ Pinzon was born in the icy glaciers of East Finland where he was concieved on the back of a one-legged mule.....the mule taught him all he knows about his unique technique of fighting with a Stick and a Whistle." If this ain't patent nonsense, it is right on the line. Regardless, it is not notable, unsourced, probably a hoax, etc. Resolute 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as ridiculous. (Take a look at the pictures...) Chubbles 23:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoax.--Bedivere 20:55, 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.. CitiCat ^♫ 20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] College Linux

Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 20:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep I think it should be kept. With no reason for deletion other than non-notability I think it should definitly kept - Pheonix15 21:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment eh?:) n.n. is one of the most commonly used criteria for deletion I believeMerkinsmum 22:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep I found one review here. More could be found Corpx 04:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete There are heaps of Linuxes.--Bedivere 20:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom not notable.Harlowraman 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete a single review is not evidence of notability. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 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 Speedy delete per CSD A7. Xoloz 15:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alpin Hong

Came across this article, saw that the AFD was incomplete (it was missing a } so I added it in). I have no idea why the person wanted it deleted but I thought I would do them a favor and complete it for them. Postcard Cathy 20:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

--Delete - not notable or sourced. reads as pr... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.173.108.118 (talk) 16:53, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Keep Seems he's released CDs and won awards.--Bedivere 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

only according to his own pr website -- concert artists guild...

delete not notable. There are no reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.65 (talk) 07:13, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep but needs sources. Nuttah68 10:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Harlowraman 17:12, 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 per WP:SNOW, though I'm assuming good faith on the nom's part. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jumping the shark

~~Delete: not encyclopaedic~~ Snowman 19:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Rethink: striking out above; although, it is not used in England much. I expect that a consensus will benefit the page. Snowman 21:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep The term has a good deal of widespread, documented usage as it relates to the entertainment media, enough for it to be relevant to contemporary society. I don't see any problem with the article. Notability is established, citations are provided, there's no original research...the nominator's only argument is that it's "unencyclopaedic", which is hardly an argument at all. Calgary 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Per Calgary. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep One of the few instances where the name of a website became entrenched in American culture. EVERYBODY knows what it means when a television show "jumps the shark", and the term has spread beyond TV to encompass any change for the worse. Mandsford 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep keep keep! A very bad nomination to start with, per all above. Dalejenkins | 20:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep This article IS encyclopedic. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 20:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per reasons above. Oyster guitarist 20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per all of the above Seancp 20:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep — Nominator fails to show rationale; basically he is saying "I don't like it," which per the essay is not an argument. [[Briguy52748 21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]
Speedy Keep and WP:SNOW this one. There are plenty of reliable third party sources demonstrating the terms notability. Also "not encyclopaedic" by itself is not a valid reason to delete an article because that argument is synonymous with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borggaard Beach At Wedge Pond

Just another beach. No references, no assertion of notability. No reason to keep. Biruitorul 19:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per lack of notability Corpx 04:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --Bedivere 20:59, 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roor

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Roor

Articles for deletion/Roor (2nd nomination)

Article written as an advertisement. Filled with POV and unsourced information. Fails to assert notability. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Bong maker, might seem notable to certain individuals, but is not. SolidPlaid 03:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Has already had an AfD.--Bedivere 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment having a previous AfD is not grounds for keeping. Article has not been improved on much since its AfD 2 years ago. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:55, 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 keep. John254 00:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucille Nixon

It seems that this person was covered by secondary sources only in the context of one event, namely the "poem contest" she won in Japan. Also, it is questionable whether this constitutes a "notable award". So, in short, she seems to fail WP:BIO. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This might be a little bit of an unusual way of establishing notability, but she's had a school named after her. Additionally, there appears to be a review of one of her books here (J Am Acad Relig.1961; XXIX: 88-90). JulesH 19:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd err on the side of Keep. She was the first foreigner to be honored at the Utakai Hajime, a poetry-reading ceremony which has been held since 1267 (or earlier). She's received at least a minimal amount of attention in scholarly works, and her book Young Ranchers at Oak Valley was favorably reviewed by several publications. Zagalejo 20:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Note that she appeared on the front page of the New York Times in 1957. I've cited that write-up in our article. Zagalejo 21:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, winner of an international award of many centuries standing would seem to establish notability unquestionably. Nominator's derisive tone indicates either ignorance or wilful systemic bias. --Dhartung | Talk 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep really quite obviously notable. Being a foreign poet who the Japanese emperor praises seems rather extraordinary. Bigdaddy1981
Keep per the award and other books, but having a school named after you --especially after a career as a school administrator--is not really by itself enough for notability.DGG (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - appears to be notable with the clean-up done. Good save! --Haemo 06:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of evidence for notability.--Bedivere 21:03, 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 Keep --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elad Peled

Mr. Peled sounds like a non-notable general in an important conflict. No sources. Very limited information. I don't know how far this article can go. -- Ben 18:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - For sure. Looks like a sitch of failing WP:BIO. Remember, notability is not inherited. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep but needs sources to establish notability. A Google search indicates several sources showing he commanded forces that played non-trivial roles in the Six-Day War[22][23] and the division he commanded retains his name. The article may exist because of this. In short I'm not ready to summarily dismiss.--Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep I agree that merely being a general does not confer automatic notability. But [24] , while maybe not a reliable source, is an encyclopedia of the 6 day war, and indicates that his troops played a significant role in the war. I strongly expect that there are print sources in Israel which can be used to expand the present article. This is not like some 15th century officer about whom no sources are likely to be found. Most generals who command combat troops in modern wars get praise or criticism from the papers, and are written about in the books written after the fact. Edison 22:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Be aware that experiencefestival.com is a Mirror of Wikipedia, and that's our article Six Day War, which indeed links back to the article under discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 00:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. According to this, Peled was "...a major general, commander of the National Defense College, one of the founders of Israel Television, director general of the Education Ministry and the deputy mayor of Jerusalem." Also, as far as I can tell, a major general is the second highest rank in the IDF. Clarityfiend 22:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Individual seems notable and sources do seem to exist, but no assertion of notability or sources are in the article. Alansohn 03:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Maybe needs a re-write but notability is established.--Bedivere 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Singu larity 07:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Den and Angie

Delete-non-noteable soap storyline, fails WP:NOTE and WP:PLOT. Merge all noteable content to Den Watts or Angie Watts. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 18:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. One of the most important storylines of the early years of one of Britain's most popular TV shows. As article suggests, a record breaking number of viewers watched the culmination of the plot. Includes two paragraphs of real world context, fulfilling the requirements of WP:PLOT. JulesH 18:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't watch soap operas, but I believe that this is the most famous soap storyline in the history of British television. It seems more encyclopedic to have a well organised article on something like this than to have lots of episode summaries of cartoons. Many people will be interested in looking this up, and no doubt it has been written about extensively in relevant specialist publications. Wimstead 18:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I don't watch soap operas but Den and Angie are the most famous couple in the history of British soap operas. No other soap characters are as famous as they were. Despite it happening many years ago this plotline is still referenced a lot in British popular culture and has become part of British culture whether we like it or not. Ben W Bell talk 19:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge of English popular culture knows that this "super couple" were a mainstay of Eastenders an immensely popular programme. Bigdaddy1981 04:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Very week keep Accepting the arguments of those who claim to know, that it is a particularly important group of episodes in a particularly important show, the length and detail of the summary is outrageous, includes what is clearly very minor material, and certainly makes ones first thought turn to deletion. What the sort of reader who might not know the material (such as myself) finds extremely unclear writing doesn't help. If it were this culturally important, I can't help thinking someone would have done a better job of it. DGG (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:PLOT. An enormous plot summary of a particular storyline. Contrary to what has been said above, it does not have two paragraphs of real-world context. It has about two sentences, neither of which is sourced. The extent of the supposed real-world context is that the couple proved to be more popular than expected and that a then-record number of people watched the divorce episode. This does not counterbalance the hugely excessively detailed plot summary and does not warrant a separate article. If the claims are sourceable then note them in the characters' articles. Delete this. Otto4711 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- You could add more real world context yourself, to address your concerns. Mowsbury 12:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Non-notable is what the nominator of this article's deletion stated. But this couple (this storyline) is extremely notable. As is mentioned in the article's lead..."their divorce on Christmas Day, 1986 pulled in a record-breaking 30 million viewers, the likes of which had never been seen for a British soap before or since." They are the equivalent to America's biggest soap opera supercouple, Luke Spencer and Laura Webber, in that respect, which is sourced in the Supercouple article (another article that I will be further fixing up soon). Plenty of primetime shows never even get those kinds of ratings. At this time, I am the only editor here at Wikipedia fixing up these soap opera supercouple articles, which is going to take more than a week or two, certainly. And I have contacted two members of Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders to fix up this article, the editors Trampikey and Gungadin, considering that they are better-suited to fix up this article than I am. They have done terrific work on the Pauline Fowler article, and I know that they can do terrific work on this article as well. Flyer22 20:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Everyone in Britain knows who Den and Angie are, they have a world record for audience figures, and are often referred to in popular culture (examples include references in the comedy shows Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps and Gimme Gimme Gimme). To call them not notable is stupidity, especially when they are arguably the best known supercouple in Britain. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep The most notable British soap storyline. Mowsbury 12:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep absolutley notable in the UK. Nomination is possibly a little US-centric. Artw 20:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Massively notable in UK.--Bedivere 21:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep As notable to UK audiences as Who shot J.R.?. Essential to understanding Eastenders.KTo288 02:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 10:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get Johnny Week

Delete-Non-noteable soap opera storyline, fails WP:N and WP:PLOT. Already a merge tag on the article. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 18:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge per current tag (or perhaps to Grant Mitchell). Cannot find sources to establish notability. JulesH 18:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- To Grant Mitchell (EastEnders) perhaps? 217.42.254.196 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:17, August 26, 2007 (UTC).
Keep That merge tag was placed on the article when it only contained plot summary. I began working on it last month to include some real world analysis and I dont think it violates WP:PLOT in its current state. I plan to include more and I have many sources to do this, which I will include to prove that it does not fail WP:N either. I was under the impression that there was no deadline on wikipedia. If editors are making an effort to improve articles and satisfy policy, then they should be permitted to do so without continous threat from a deletionist, who clearly hasn't bothered to assess the article adequately before nominating.Gung adin 13:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Gungadin.--Bedivere 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, doesn't just contain plot summary, therefore does not violate WP:PLOT. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - per Gungadin; is not just a plot summary, thus passes WP:PLOT. Neranei (talk) 02:00, 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. John254 00:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharongate

Delete-Another soap opera storyline, failing WP:PLOT. Not noteable. Merge or re-direct to EastEnders. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 18:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Includes non-trivial real world analysis of the impact of this particular plot, hence does not violate WP:PLOT. JulesH 18:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep had massive UK "cultural" impact at the time. Ever read the Sun? Bigdaddy1981 04:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete the sources are from BBC, whom I am not sure is an independent source to cover something like this Corpx 04:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment some of the sources are from BBC news, which is editorially independent. As Bigdaddy1981 points out, there are other sources as well, because the plot was well discussed in the tabloid newspapers at the time. They might not, however, be as convenient or authoritative. JulesH 09:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Extremely week keep Even if this is a particularly important group of episodes in a particularly important show, the length and detail of the summary is outrageous, includes what is clearly minor material, and certainly makes ones first thought turn to deletion. DGG (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per JulesH and Bigdaddy1981. This is one of the biggest UK television storylines of the 90s in terms of viewership and media coverage. When the article was originally written it only contained plot summary, but I worked on it last month to include some real world analysis. I plan to include more and have many sources to do this. I was under the impression that there was no deadline on wikipedia. I'm not suggesting that the article doesn't need more work, but it does not violate WP:PLOT as the nominater suggests.Gung adin 13:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Well referenced, does not violate WP:PLOT. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. BBC News is completely appropriate to get news on this subject. This article is well-sourced with valid references, and is not just a plot summary. Also, a definite notable storyline. Flyer22 15:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep If BBC News isn't reliable and impartial, what is? I'd actually prefer it to The Sun.--Bedivere 21:08, 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, but I am editorially redirecting it to the program's main article until more useful information arises. Xoloz 16:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Firm (EastEnders)

Delete-Another soap opera plot, failing WP:PLOT. Merge or re-direct to EastEnders? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 18:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This one does fail WP:PLOT by not including any real-world context. Brief search for anything relevant failed to turn up sources. JulesH 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Marginal Merge/Delete This is an encyclopedia. Every single plot twist of a soap does not merit its own article. Pedro | Chat 19:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is not an individual plot, but the equivalent to an article about a race in Star Trek or Star Wars or The Others in Lost. The Firm have appeared many times over the course of the series, each time with different characters and new plots Stephenb (Talk) 20:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete close to Eastenders cruft on this one. Bigdaddy1981 04:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PLOT. Otto4711 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep An important part of a major soap.--Bedivere 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Stephenb — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 09:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep has the potential to be more than plot summary. Gung adin ♦ 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless written in a real world context and some independent reliable sources are provided. Nuttah68 10:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Deleteas per nom and WP:PLOT Harlowraman 17:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pure plot summary --Phirazo 17:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete if it can't be merged into the parent EastEnders article. Although a marginally notable fictional organisation in a major soap, this is completely unsourced plot summary as it currently stands. EyeSerene^TALK 09:04, 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~~ redirect, WP:PLOT. Cool Hand Luke 01:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shannis

Delete-An article about a couple in a british soap opera. Not noteable, reads like a story. If every soap opera couple in the world had their own article, there'd be no internet room left. Re-direct to EastEnders. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 18:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Unable to find sources to establish notability. Article is almost entirely plot summary. JulesH 18:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) Stephenb (Talk) 20:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
comment I really think it would be better if the articles had been nominated in groups of approximately similar content and importance. DGG (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and then the bitching would start about how impossible it is to consider a mass nomination. Otto4711 18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:PLOT. Otto4711 18:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep I thought the whole point of Wikipedia is it's not paper so there's room for everything notable.--Bedivere 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of WP:NOTPAPER is not that any article someone feels like writing gets kept. PAPER specifically states that it is not a free pass for articles and that all articles must still meet applicable policies and guidelines. Otto4711 18:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Of course, but the nominator was wrong to say "If every soap opera couple in the world had their own article, there'd be no internet room left." — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to read that as hyperbole as opposed to an actual concern that Wikipedia will run out of room. Otto4711 01:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep has the potential to be more than plot summary. Gung adin ♦ 15:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Bedivere. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bedivere's argument is based on WP:NOTPAPER and since that does not serve to save an otherwise unacceptable article a keep opinion based on it is rather weak. Otto4711 01:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing more than a plot summary already covered at the individual characters articles Nuttah68 10:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Gungadin. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 11:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable Harlowraman 17:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pure plot summary. --Phirazo 17:50, 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 keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Banned

Delete-Non-noteable, and fake, band. Fails WP:MUSIC, all worthy content to be merged with EastEnders. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 18:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Storylines of EastEnders (1980s). No sources establish notability, seems to have been a fairly minor plot in the grand scheme of things. JulesH 19:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge - Seems like a fair enough plan JulesH. Lets merge with Storylines of EastEnders (1980s). --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge per The Random Editor Stephenb (Talk) 20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's not a real band of course so surely WP:MUSIC is irrelevant. It should be kept as an important part of a major soap.--Bedivere 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. WP:MUSIC does not apply to fiction. Had real-world impact as two of the band's songs were actual hit singles in the UK, one of them reaching number one, making this a notable element of the soap. (In fact, that would mean it does pass WP:MUSIC, although the singles were released under the actors' names, not "The Banned".) — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:POKEMON. MrPrada 06:50, 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. Singu larity 07:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ty Wagner

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Little to no mention on google: [25] The Evil Spartan 18:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP:NN and lacks WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 18:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 20:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails MUSIC. Oyster guitarist 20:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete No sources proving he is famous in California and possible conflict of interest here.--JForget 23:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination.--Bedivere 21:13, 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 no consensus.. CitiCat ^♫ 20:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Chappelle's Show skits

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Chappelle's Show skits

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 17:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This is obviously a spin-out from Chappelle's Show, in keeping with Wikipedia:Summary style. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete although enjoyable this is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Bigdaddy1981 04:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete this is content appropriate for a fan cite, not an encyclopedia. Merge the notable ones back into the main article, but delete this article per WP:FICT (as in lack of notability for a list of the show's skits) Corpx 04:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and does not follow WP:WAF. Per Corpx, merge notable skits back to the main article and delete the list. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 13:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Note that WP:NOT#PLOT requires that articles "should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." Article in question says things like, "This sketch was featured in the first episode and helped Chappelle gain significant notoriety", "All of the lines were improvised; Mooney received sole writing credit", "The sketch is a spoof on the Players Ball, an annual gathering of pimps", "Ironically, shows with a similar premise were later released", etc etc, all of this is clearly context and analysis. Eleland 14:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Eleland. I'm all for the deletion of listcruft, but this contains extensive prose analysis that goes far beyond simple guide listing of the episodes and their plots. Factors such as production and release history, real world reactions by fans and the subjects of the sketches, and numerous other facts are in every entry. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pointless, non-encyclopaedic.--Bedivere 21:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The list is not exhaustive and does not ignore analysis, which leads me to believe it is not simply a plot summary of the show. If there is cleanup to be done, that need not be effected through AfD. Dekimasuよ! 06:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- per Eleland. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 01:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 17:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete What isn't plot summary is original analysis. --Phirazo 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It lacks citations now, but that doesn't mean that such documentation doesn't exist; in this case, it seems likely that sources could be found. Dekimasuよ! 17:12, 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. Singu larity 07:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of actors who gained or lost weight for a role

Procedural - prod removed. I asked for the information in the article to be substantiated with references, for so many claims - well over 100 actors mentioned and only 4 real citations. There are even actors and films which are both redlinked without citations. One of the citations even states "unverified". On top of all this I believe this to be listcruft. And there are no defined criteria for joining this list - if Mark Hamill lost three pounds to become Luke Skywalker, would he qualify? The Rambling Man 17:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Oh yeah this some major list-cruft for you. I also have to agree, where do you draw the line of losing wait? Is it ten pounds plus? Definitely delete this one. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Losing or gaining weight is not a particularly notable subject alone, it is certainly not enough to suggest interest or function in a list of actors. Actors sometimes lose and gain weight, sometimes they grow beards, sometimes they change their hairstyles. That's just a part of being an actor. In very, very few cases is it in any way remarkable. So I fail to see the significance of a lits of actors who have gained and lost weight, especially when in most cases the loss or gain of weight is insignificant. Calgary 20:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Take this one down and work on it some more. It's easy to criticize this when it's not finished or even the least bit sourced. I have no idea where the weight figures come from (unless the author did that kind of thing at a carnival). As it is, however, even those of us who think it's a worthwhile concept will have a hard time voting to keep. It's somewhat notable because it's one of the more unhealthy things that an actor or actress is required to do, sometimes... doing your own stunts is optional. Get used to a lot of mean comments that accompany a vote to delete, try to eat something to feel better, but not too much. Mandsford 20:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - it's almost completely unreferenced, four useful citations in total for over a hundred claims. The first way of saving it would be to remove all uncited claims. Plus, add some criteria for being added to the list, I would argue that virtually all actors change physically for a given role. The Rambling Man 20:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete actors routinely gain and lose weight for roles. This is hardly a notable trait. Resolute 21:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't think it's routine; indeed, I think actors are under more pressure than those of us not on film to maintain their weight. It would depend on the amount of weight gain or weight loss, I would think. If someone is required to add or shed 30 pounds in order to qualify for a particular role, it would be a makeup job that's difficult to remove. Mandsford 21:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Whether it's routine or not, the article simply doesn't meet the required policies of verifiable assertion of notability with reliable sources. It's that simple. The Rambling Man 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Further comment If an actor truly makes a significant effort to change weight for a role then why not add that information into article for the actor him/her-self? This is 100% listcruft. The Rambling Man 22:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Userfy and delete, with no prejudice towards recreation if author can find sources discussing the notability of actors gaining or losing weight for roles. I think I've read newspaper articles on this subject, and a link to such an article can be found, I'd be willing to reconsider my !vote, as that would establish that the list isn't an arbitrary collection of data. Incidentally, the absence of sources for most of the data isn't a reason for deletion — it's a reason for improvement. Lack of sources is a deletion criterion only if it's clear that sources couldn't be added. The existence of four sources on the subject shows that more could be found. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete per being a list of loosely associated topics and a list of trivia Corpx 04:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete, trivial intersection of data and unreferenced original research. Axem Titanium 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete As mentioned above a list of weight gains for movie roles is hardly encyclopedia, and there are only eight references to account for the entire list. And to emphasise Calgary's comments from above, with a list like this we may as well be listing actors who got a haircut for a role. •97198 talk 07:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pointless.--Bedivere 21:14, 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. Singu larity 07:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Premier League Broadcasters (2007-08)

Even in the title alone this is a direct breach of Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide. Contains absolutely no information outside of a list of TV broadcasters of the topic, and I fail to see how it can become encyclopedic. Delete. AllynJ 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - completely wrong information and not up to date. irrelevant article PalX 20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I've seen other "list of broadcasters of ___ show" get deleted due to the frequency of change in this and really, the lack of notability Corpx 04:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOT a directory. Oldelpaso 09:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all above. - PeeJay 11:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article does not explain the significance or importance of its subject, presumably because it is not significant or important! Lacks the notability to warrant an encyclopedic article on this sibject in Wikipedia. --Malcolmxl5 18:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Number 5 7 08:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Simpson Song

WP:NOT a crystalball - we don't produce articles off the back of unsourced rumours. Fredrick day 16:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - It's totally empty and doesn't exist - I can't imagine this being a controversial delete in anyway. bobanny 17:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Self-described rumor. --Evb-wiki 17:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable enough. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 20:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This may also be one of the least specific article titles Wikipedia has ever seen. Resolute 21:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom and per WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and what an awful title for an article.--JForget 23:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - per horribly vague title and WP:CRYSTAL. Neranei (talk) 02:36, 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. ELIMINATORJR 13:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MODx (software)

Fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:NOTABILITY Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to MODx (software). Appears this is just one in a handfull of WP:SPA Accounts used to promote MODx (software) on Wikipedia, Has previous deletions. Hu12 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Delete I hope the administrator who closes this makes sure any sites people will link to are reliable sources, too many times do we see software articles being kept with the backing of third-party sources that are in fact just adverts by sites the company can pay to write a glorious review. Jackaranga 20:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not related to the project, I'm simply a user who uses the software and felt that it needed an article on Wikipedia. I do have an account on wikipedia, but I cannot remember my password and the email address I used to register no longer exists... I had no other choice but to create a new account.

Can you please explain how the article itself sounds like an advert? Everything in that article is fact, supplemented with notable sources as per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. It's completely objective, and I don't understand how it can be marked as an advertisement.Ricjustsaid 01:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC) — Ricjustsaid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am not sure how much notability is required but MODx is an essential mention in a list of modern CMS applications. It has a wide user base and has been compared to Drupal, Joomla, Wordpress and more. I certainly agree that the previously deleted article was slanted toward the project but this new one is more neutral and most of all filled with facts and points reltating to the application. Jaygilmore 01:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)— Jaygilmore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have made few edits outside this topic because I lost my username and password from a previous account. I have not made any edits because I am busy working as a business owner and web developer but I am a MODx user and I think that it needs to stand. Jaygilmore 03:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article marked as an advertisement? I don't understand how this article differs from other software articles on Wikipedia. For example, take a look on articles about other CMS like Joomla or Drupal. So, why constant deletion on this one? Seem like over protective or biased admin. Slylandrone— Slylandrone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding comment was added at 08:00, 19 August 2007

Loads of other CMS software articles have been nominated for deletion before, and deleted in many cases, if Hu12, was really biased he would just have deleted the article as spam. Please can people replying to AfDs stay on topic, no point targeting the nomination itself, anybody can nominate any article for deletion, just convince us that the article should be kept. Jackaranga 11:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess the issue that there seems to be no requirement to provide evidence that an article was entered as a promotional item. Someone has posted that this article was written by someone who has a business relationship with the developers and this is not substantiated. I know for a fact that the person who wrote it is an active MODx user but is not affiliated with the organization in any other way (to my knowledge). The article may be lacking in some additional third party resources and I will remove the claim oriented material that may make the article seem as a promotional piece. Please don't delete this article without first allowing it to be brought up to the standard of WP. I also don't see how this "contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic." proves anything other than the fact that I have created a new account (as I had lost my old account info as I am not a regular WP contrib and have only posted a few small edits to other unrelated articles before). I am a person and a MODx user who is willing to contribute to the article. I have used many other content management systems and while bias is inevitable I know that a neutral article can be made.

I would request that the people who have deemed this article delete worthy be able to cite specific areas of the article that don't meet the policies. In addition, after reading the entries for other similar CMSs would suggest that despite multiple authors and edits they are similar in tone and no more or less neutral.

I do understand the need to keep WP a place of encyclopedic information and not promotion, spam, opinion or other similar material but the burden is on the author or authors to meet without knowing where the threshold is. Please assist us in ensuring that this and other contributions don't fail the standard. Jaygilmore 12:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

After some consideration and attempts to find unbiased reviews, articles or the like I would say that MODx may not meet the WP standard but it is certainly notable. I will leave it up to others to further defend it. Jaygilmore 13:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

One final comment: I think that the frustration in this discussion stems from a lack of understanding of the WP policies and where editorial burdens lie. After review of said documentation, I now see the larger implications of retaining unverified and potentially promotional material. That being said the marking process has the appearance of digital vigilantism and lynching vs. the protection of ideals and the integrity of Wikipedia. Innocent or inadvertent non-neutral articles by a fisrt time editor does not necessarily prove impropriety or off-purpose intention just naivety. Everyone makes a first post at sometime. It should be up to informed review not circumstantial factors or "where there's smoke theirs fire" methods(i.e. this is a single poster and a slightly too positive article so lets delete it because it must be intentional or a marketing tactic, "a" doesn't equal "a" in this case).Jaygilmore 17:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I really can't find much wrong with the current version of the article, other than that as an early version, it's naturally written by people who likes the software. Wouldn't most wikiepdia articles be started this way? Either by fans or the opposite, an early version of the article seldom establish notability, but this will come as more people read the article and add there views and knowledge. Until then, it would be fair if Wikipedia added some information along the lines "This article is not yet considered to be an verifiable or neutral article by Wikipedias standard - please contribute [in this and this way]", but the big "warning" boxes on top of the article right now seems way too "harsh" to me. -- Karsa.olong 11:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to suggest a couple of things: Express your opinion using the normal AfD format, (start your paragraphs with either Keep or Delete (or Comment if you don’t have a strong opinion either way), if you want to add a reply after already having expressed your choice for keep or delete, then you can omit the bold text. But please try to avoid long tirades, stick to the point. Jackaranga 12:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per my nom. I have the same concerns as Jackaranga. Simply having search results or links, may mean well paid Search engine optimization. If some are found, trivial or incidental coverage of the subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. This is clearly noted in the notability guidelines.--Hu12 12:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete But on the basis of notability and not on the overly paranoid idea that all submissions are broad/multilevel spam. Protect the integrity of WP but don't assume every poster is a scam unless proven otherwise. Thanks Jackaranga for the suggestions on usage. There should actually be a recommended format link in these pages. Jaygilmore 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just incase you were thinking otherwise, WP:SPA, stands for Single Purpose Account, not Spam, though I see how one could think that as the spelling is very close to WP:SPAM. Jackaranga 14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Jackaranga: I didn't think that WP:SPA was the same as WP:SPAM my reference to spam is in the content of Hu12's nomination where it is suggested that the only purpose of the SPA IS to promote MODx. This kind of wording implies knowledge of the SPA as a fact vs a circumstantial point to consider which should be worded as may be to show sucpicion or caution. As I mentioned above though the article does need revision and may need to be deleted per the notability.Jaygilmore 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

SPA accounts and IP's were used for the purpose to edit both the current and deleted versions of MODx (software). Not too dissimilar to what has occured on this page. Promotion can be perfectly innocent, within a particular interest or it can represent a user pushing an agenda. Either way, niether the words "Spam" or "scam" were mentioned or suggested.--Hu12 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hu12: I wasn't meaning that you necessarily meant to suggest it. I also didn't think that it was your intention to suggest anything it is just that some words can have more powerful meanings than we intend. I do though support your nom after learning about WP policies and purposes. Cheers. Jaygilmore 17:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to advertise MODx at all; I saw the previous article and found it to clearly be an advertisement and I totally understand why the article was marked as such. However I've also seen that pretty much all of the other CMS/CMF softwares have articles, and felt that MODx needed one as well - it's as simple as that. No agenda or advertising intended. If you're basing the notability argument on the number of "big" sources covering MODx, then I agree, the software doesn't have enough sources like that yet and probably should be deleted as per the wikipedia guidelines. Ricjustsaid 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless reliable sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 10:53, 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, asserts no notability. Singu larity 07:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ALC (Another Lost Cauze)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day The Evil Spartan 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. We could assume good faith and speedy d as {{db-club}}. WP:NN in any case. --Evb-wiki 17:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Evb-wiki. Could speedy for failing to assert notability. Resolute 21:22, 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. --Core desat 07:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Supermodels

This should be deleted and replaced by a category, in my opinion as the page adds nothing a category cannot Corpx 16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete and do not replace with a category "Supermodel" is a much abused hypester's term, now used for just about any model who has been on a magazine cover and some who have not. Category:Supermodels was previously deleted. Piccadilly 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete The list is already superceeded by Category:Female models, so the information is already organized there. In addition, "female model" is an objective term, wereas "supermodel" is subjective. Calgary 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This falls under the old "listcruft" list of don'ts and more don'ts, the truly indiscriminate list of blue links and nothing else about any of these people. If you see anyone on here who isn't in Category:Female Models, you can fix that up rather easily. Mandsford 20:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per above. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 20:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This page could become more than a list of names, extra sourced data (dob, height, weight, contracts, wealth, nationality, and so on....) could be added, perhaps sortable tables. It is a relatively new page and I guess that it will improve with time. Snowman 22:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete My guess is that is would get worse with time, as people added ever more obscure names, with ever weaker claims to "Supermodel" status, just as happened with the category. Carina22 23:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep and source better, each should be sourced to a media reference using the term "supermodel". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The list is potentially useful. Give the authors a chance to add sources and definition of "supermodel." I suspect as supermodel can be defined in terms of earnings. QueenAdelaide 06:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as having a hopelessly subjective standard of inclusion. It might be useful is not a compelling reason for inclusion. Otto4711 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Don't confuse truth with verifiability, the only requirement is that reliable media label them "supermodel", not that they actually are a supermodel by some complicated measure of their income and number of covershots. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete, there really isn't a NPOV way of defining a supermodel and any such "extra sourced data" would probably start violating WP:BLP. Axem Titanium 20:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per Calgary. "Female model" category is better, as it is objective. The information is clearer and more easy to access in the form of a category, IMO. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 13:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Look at the reference I added, it should be easy enough to identify where mainstream media identifies someone as a supermodel. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Highly notable people.--Bedivere 21:16, 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. Though AfD is a discussion not a vote the issue here was quite straightforward - is there a place for this list in addition to categories? By a majority of 2:1 the Community decided in the negative which I regard as a consensus. TerriersFan 22:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Colombians

This list has a whole bunch of semi-transclusions from "Main Articles". Should be deleted, or split. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete in my opinion, notable people from ___ country is a list of extremely loosely associated names, as they have nothing except their nationality in common. This should be categorized. Corpx 16:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's a safe assumption that it already is. RegRCN 19:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. RegRCN 19:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - there are more specific pages and categories.--Svetovid 19:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'd be surprised if this isn't already categorized. If it's not, then keep the list up until it is. Mandsford 20:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep and reference better. Country of origin is not a "loose association" any more than a college attended, or working for a particular company. Having a category is no reason to delete a list, its a different animal. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep List of notable people associated with [x] is useful, & different enough from a category to be independently viable. —Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-08-19 19:28Z
If the article would be to keep I suggest changing the title, because that will not be maintainable, a category would fit more and per profession so cancelación por per Corpx.--JForget 00:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep A useful source of reference.--Bedivere 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Harlowraman 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - better served by a category per above comments. Nationality is far too loose a criterion for inclusion in a list. EyeSerene^TALK 08:54, 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 No consensus, defaulting to Keep. ELIMINATORJR 13:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of British Asian people

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

These are all I have time for right now. I'll be back (with a separate AFD)...

Separated articles for each race of people that reside in a particular country are an unmaintainable goal. There are dozens if not hundreds of ethnic groups and about 200 countries in the world. The mathematics of maintains articles of questionable use for all of them are impossible. They also tend to become dumping grounds for WP:COI redlinks. I will add a separate AFD for articles that list people by country ASAP. - Richfife 15:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per over categorization of racial/national intersections. Corpx 15:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - It goes too far to be meaningful.--Danaman5 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per Corpx. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete for the same reason as all other similar lists: the inclusion criterion is horribly subjective (WP:NOR) and such a list serves no useful purpose (WP:NOT#DIR). EyeSerene^TALK 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep all - These specific lists are there for a reason - Asian, African and Caribbean people have all featured heavily in British history thanks to the rise and fall of the British Empire and the movements of peoples between different parts of it, while many Jewish people have for the past several centuries settled and integrated in Britain while fleeing persecution in other parts of Europe. These lists are not arbitrary but a reflection of the influence these people have had in British history. Questions of redlinks and maintenance are important, but should be answered by cleanup not nominating for AfD. Qwghlm 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - there are more specific and useful categories and lists and this one is just a indiscriminate collection of information .--Svetovid 19:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep all "These are all I have time for right now. I'll be back (with a separate AFD)..." Oh, is it tea time? Jolly good. No need to hurry on our account. The difference between Americans and British people is that most of us are descended from immigrants, whereas you guys still have that "There goes the neighborhood" feeling about newcomers. Easy for us to say, though... you kept most of your original inhabitants. Mandsford 20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there an argument in there? I'm not getting paid to edit Wikipedia. Plus I've already been accused of racism for not being conclusive. I can't fix them all at the same time. I only have 10 fingers. - Richfife 21:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? The rest of us have 16 fingers, and we all get monthly checks of $200 for editing Wikipedia... Mandsford 21:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep it civil please... even in jest ;) No-one is disputing that ethnic origin and cultural roots are important, but producing a list like this is not the best way to go. Many of these people are redlinked (no article=possibly non-notable?), and we Brits are just as much a mongerel race as everyone else (from the Celts through various European migrations/invasions to current immigration). Go back far enough, and most of us are descended from immigrants too. There have been documented Asian/Jewish/Black/etc communities in Britain for centuries... which leads to my main objection: who qualifies for inclusion on such a list, and how do we decide? If it's important to a person's identity, it belongs in their article (if they have one). EyeSerene^TALK 21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete all Categories, and the upcoming category intersection will make these lists redundant and, in fact, burdensome (with the sourcing pressures). That and the fact that I feel a lot of these "British" ethnic categories are inching on original-research and redefinition. Their census and records are completely different from America's, and in some cases, ethnicity doesn't even seem to play as big a role. Bulldog123 05:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep- same as with the -Americans. There is no policy against this sort of article, and no reason to delete them all. The nom argues that the there would be too many articles, but 100 ethnic groups and 200 countries is only --but that is only 20,000, and a NOT PAPER encyclopedia could handle even that. It's less than 1% of the total number of articles in enWP. .But not all will be of equal importance, so lets keep the important ones, and delete any really unimportant ones that have gotten created--just a for other types of articles. based on the content, the ones listed seem important. Maybe WPedians are sensible after all and simple havent done the unimportant ones & there's nothing to delete. Being sensible, we know that ethnicity and nationality are important, separately and in combination. As for who belongs, it's an editing question. if we dont have sources, we don't include. DGG (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep all If the magical intersections ever appear, then and only then can they be deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I find these lists useful for navigating subcultures. They do no harm. QueenAdelaide 06:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)— QueenAdelaide (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: This user's primary contribution seems to be spamming links to the deleted list List of entertainers related to academics in various articles
Keep. Per QueenAdelaide Uranometria 21:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Especially "Black Britons" is absurd there is no such thing as a black briton. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the terms Black British and Black Briton are used [26]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:54, 23 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 This should be better in categories and maybe per profession. i.e British Asian Journalists, British Asian Athletes, etc.--JForget 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep all Lists serve a very different function to Categories. Surely the usefulness of these lists is more important than how easy or hard it is to MANAGE/MAINTAIN them. Wikipedia should be user-orientated rather than "editor"-orientated. The red links are less to do with notability than the fact that these communities tends to be less comuputer literated or have less access to internet. Ethnic minorities suffer greatly by the lack of research and representation in other media. This offer a great opportunity to record the development of these under-represented communities. Chineseartlover 03:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC) — Chineseartlover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep all these lists serve a legitimate function that a category cannot serve; it can be soured.--Sefringle^Talk 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep There is plenty of discussion about British Asians, so it is a notable topic. I am amazed by the assertion that there are no black Britons. I see them every day. They are tabulated in the 2001 Census under the name "black British" - did the census people make them up?--Bedivere 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep however inconcise, disparate and possibly divisive such decriptions and lists may be, such terms are commonly used in the media, racial diversity surveys on Government forms etc unless Wikipedia insists on divorcing itself from the rest of the world in the terms it uses,such articles have a place.(sorry forgot to sign again)KTo288 21:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per the nominator, this is why we have categories. USE THEM. Burntsauce 21:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely categories serve a completely different function to lists? Categories cannot be annotated or sourced. Categories are there to link articles together and find things that have connections. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure we all know what the difference between a list and a category is. The only problem here is these lists, according to some people, abuse list privileges, so to speak. Bulldog123 03:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is perfectly reasonable to show how different ethnic or religious minorities have succeeded in Britain. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- These lists are merely extensions of the main articles for those ethnic groups which would be too large if they included the information in the lists- see articles in this category:Category:Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom such as Black British, Caribbean British, British Asian, British Jews, French_people_in_the_United_Kingdom, Britalian etc. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep all and any similar which may be nominated. As pointed out above, do not confuse purpose of lists with that of categories. Furthermore, the definitions involved are perfectly valid and are reflected in UK censuses/common usage/ common sense, and/or combinations of these.--Smerus 09:00, 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. Singu larity 07:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esther Baptiste

speedy denied because admin claimed notability asserted. Just that: Asserted but not proven. I see nothing different here than any other civicly minded young adult. In fact, I see what seems to be an article written by a close friend, relative, or boyfriend/spouse. If true, she has done some good things but the bottom line is like so many others in the US who has done nothing to set her apart from the many others who also do charity work. Postcard Cathy 15:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BIO. Also concerns of WP:OR and WP:COI. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Touching, but fails WP:BIO--Yannick 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP is not myspace. What exactly is her claim to notability that denied the speedy? Is being a "South Florida socialite" really a claim to notability? Corpx 15:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Corpx, when you figure that out, please let me know. I am still trying to figure that one out! Cathy

Delete She may be all those things but they're impossible to verify as there are no sources. So, on the basis of what we have got, I do not think she meets the criteria for notability on en.wikipedia. --Malcolmxl5 16:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No WP:RS and could not find anything to verify claims. --Evb-wiki 16:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per no verified claims. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. This is really just an unsourced biography of a 24-year-old woman who works for a convention center. --Metropolitan90 17:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopedic hagiography. But I do love the part about how she "enhanced the dining experience" of customers when she worked at Wendy's. That's notable, innit? bobanny 18:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Vanity/promotional article. Mowsbury 19:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete not notable and full of ridiculous claims.--Svetovid 20:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. It just didn't feel like A7 to me, and I fully endorse the deletion. Ma x im 20:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Notability doubtful.--Bedivere 21:21, 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. WP:V is not negotiable. Those wanting to keep the article have not produced a single source to support it. Sandstein 16:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pribor-3B Assault Rifle

Either a very obscure prototype or a fake. Looks like a bad movie prop to me. In any case, WP:V. Prod removed by author, but no WP:RS forthcoming. Leibniz 15:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I could find no WP:RELY sources, but I don't think it's a fake (it looks like a failed prototype whose only claim to fame was apparently an appearance in Duke Nukem). I'm leaning towards delete though, mostly due to lack of notability. EyeSerene^TALK 17:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per above; I also could not find any reliable sources regarding this weapon. The article is largely speculation, and is therefore unacceptable. Parsecboy 17:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I really wanted this to be keep, but all the references are circular from Wikipedia, apart from the speculative discussion at http://www.securityarms.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1222. Not a fake, and surely a terrible design, but the article is basically OR. Springnuts 21:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You could start a long thread about the Gatling Flechette Meroka Nordenfelt Pump Action Ray Gun by showing the folks on that board a picture of the CPS 4100. Leibniz 22:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Its seems this artical doesnt seem to have any real facts to it. Theres a question mark for designed,nothing for produced, #'s built, variants, weight, length, action, rate of fire, and max range. Also it doesnt have sources nor it seems to have enough info to make it a decent size artical.(ForeverDEAD 23:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

Comment Considering that this weapon remained hidden from the rest of the world until it saw actual combat, I'm guessing that this other weapon, that saw limited use would not necessarily have glossy informational pamphlets sent to Washington DC about it. -75.130.90.56 01:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)-

Keep. Tula State Arms Museum exists, This firearm next to it in one of the pictures is real, This other firearm next to it is real as well & the designer German A. Korobov seems real (no one website highlights it but several mention his other designs). Considering this firearms designer was fairly notable within the Soviet Union, I'd call it a keep. -75.130.90.56 01:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)-

That's got to be the flimsiest argument I've ever heard. No one is doubting the existence of Tula. Just because there is information for his other weapons isn't good enough to keep this one. Parsecboy 11:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Leibniz thought that it could be fake. Re-read the nom for deletion. It was nom'd for WP:V. Well, it is a real weapon. A real museum is housing a real weapon. The weapons surrounding the weapon for deletion are real, too. The designer is real & notable in the Soviet Union as a firearms designer. Given that it was designed in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, it is doubtful that there is a wealth of independent information written about it but that, in itself, does not make it non-notable. -75.130.90.56 17:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)-

The problem is there is absolutely no imformation about it, outside of some fanboy forums. Therefore, there is nothing with which to create an article. Parsecboy 17:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First, anons can't vote on AFD. Second, I nominated it for lack of WP:V regardless of whether it is a photoshopped waterpistol or some dead-end prototype that the fanboys confuse with anything that has bullets coming out of one end. No WP:RS, no article, simple as that. Leibniz 19:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can !vote on AFD (vandals and socks aside, of course). Someguy1221 20:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Parsecboy is just trying to throw his weight around and should be banned from this discussion. Nonsensical sock ranting by 65.102.177.92 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log). —Kurykh 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete. While it may be a real firearm in a real museum, and would probably be just about notable if it could be sourced, the fact is that the article is completly unsourced, and Googling finds nothing other than forums. As such fails WP:V Nigel Ish 22:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Insulting and vandalising other users/userpages does not help get this page not deleted. Most likely it will turn others against you and hurt your cause.(ForeverDEAD 05:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Those IPs that were vandalizing my user page (and main space pages as well) are socks of the perm-banned user User:Jetwave Dave. Those votes/comments should be ignored. Parsecboy 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Originally submitted by Parsecboy on 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)- Those IPs that were vandalizing my user page (and main space pages as well) are socks of the perm-banned user User:Jetwave Dave. Those votes/comments should be ignored. Parsecboy 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Before you start making accusations here on on your user page that Jetwave Dave was responsible for vandalizing your user page, you should submit some kind of real proof. Otherwise, it smacks of a self-serving, false accusation. That is not ethical and doesn't help your cause.

Before you dispute sockpuppetry allegations against you, do not make posts with the edit summary "Jetwave Dave will kick your ass!", lest you set yourself up for mockery and ridicule. —Kurykh 00:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kurykh: Before you cite evidence found in an edit summary as proof, do tell us all what would keep anyone who wants to do so from claiming to be another person at anytime, anywhere here on Wikipedia while using an anonymous IP? I wait for your amazing reply. There are just too many of you Wiki types who think that you know what the hell you are doing and saying here, when you prove all too often that you really don't have the slightest clue.

Have you heard of checkuser? Someguy1221 02:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you're an impersonator who's jumping from IP to IP trying to gain notoriety and taunting with utmost stupidity apparent in their words? Your floppy excuses get more and more ridiculous by the post. Don't come back before you begin thinking with your brains again. —Kurykh 02:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

See, I told you were full of it and would delete the post. The truth is not something you care to deal with, is it, Kurykh? Yeah, we've got your number: You are a total phoney.

Well, he is American and he can spell, so it is not our friend Jetwave. You rather indulge him by letting him turn this AFD into his personal therapy session. Leibniz 12:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A personal therapy session is what each and every one of you pathetic people need, more so than anyone named "Jetwave Dave," I daresay. I bet he is a real cool guy.

Jetwave, you're not fooling anyone. Why don't you get a life and move on? Is this article that important to you? Moreover, stop vandalizing legitimate edits by editors with whom you disagree. It's not helping your cause either. Parsecboy 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per lack of verifiability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. Someguy1221 04:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets Get Back On Topic Insted of arguing about people who make personal attacks and vandalise letts get back to the subject at hand. i would love to see a reason to keep this artical but none has yet to make a valadie reaon why this should be kept(ForeverDEAD 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Weak delete - I think it's likely real (unless you assert an intentional intense photoshop session just to fool us, which is not likely). But there are ... thousands, tens of thousands of prototype firearms that never rise to the level of notability. Lacking sources that it was of any significance in a technical or historical sense, and lacking reliable sources on what it was in detail, it's probably a bad idea to have an article on it. Even if it was real. Georgewilliamherbert 02:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep, a lot of bad faith is shown in this discussion, but lets stay focussed on what we are here for, building an encyclopedia. Going through the discussions on the internet about this gun, there is no question that it is real and exists. Pictures of the gun on display in the Tula museum are circulating widely, the designer is known, and we know where the gun is found. Yes it is a prototype, but its very special nature (3-barreled) gives it a certain notability, even for just a prototype. Just on the internet, it might be very difficult to find reliable sources, but as we know exactly where this gun is on display, it should certainly be possible to find reliable off-line sources (in other words, the topic is definately verifiable, just not yet verified). Pending those sources and given the notability of this particular gun design, I think deletion is not the way to go. If a topic is both notable and there is a reasonable chance that reliable sources exist, the first thing should not be to delete the article, even (or especially) if the chances are such sources are to be found offline rather then online. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Then delete the article until someone actually takes the time to scrounge up a reliable source or two. Until then, the article is untenebale. And I'd say it's a bit of a mischaracterization to call what's transpired here "bad faith", when it is demonstrably the creator of this article, flipping out and vandalizing dozens abd dozens of pages, creating an impostor of me for God knows what, all because someone put this article for AfD. Not to mention he took the time to create an impostor email address, and has sent me a couple nasty emails. "Bad faith" my ass. Parsecboy 16:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Geez dude relax, no need to start swearing at me. As nowhere in my post I stated who I thought was assuming bad faith, I do not understand where this rant is coming from. In reality, I was referring to both sides in the dispute and not just you. Perhaps you should take a step back from this AfD and simply see where it ends. Apart from that, I stand by my statement as I think it is counterproductive to delete something that is both notable and verfiable, but that just hasn't been verified yet. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't swearing at you or anyone, for that matter. I just bristle a bit at people who enter discussions and talk about "bad faith" without knowing the circumstances of the discussion, especially when there was no bad faith until Jetwave flipped out and started vandalizing everything with incivil edit summaries. The problem is that it isn't necessarily "verifiable". Delete it, and if the sources are found, restart it then. Parsecboy 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:FAITH#Dealing_with_bad_faith: "If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack." So watch it. Leibniz 17:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"So watch it"? Man.. people are edgy in this discussion. I am really sorry if I am being misinterpreted, but you cannot deny that there are a lot of personal attacks (in 2 directions) in this discussion, which distracts from the real discussion. That was the only point I was trying to make. Again, I am sorry if that was unclear, now lets get back to the real discussion :) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I Agree with Parsecboy on this one, i would love to have this artical stay but untill it can be sourced it should be deleted and jsut remade when the relible soruces are avalible.(ForeverDEAD 19:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Comment If it is real, which has not been established, I for one would be very interested to see how this thing could possibly work. Where is the receiver? Is it partially disassembled? The bolt? Or bolts? Is there a gas system? Where does it eject cases? Straight down into Ivan's pants? (Gee, thanks for the hot brass, Comrade Korobov.) But I do not want to read any more fanboy speculation from "the internet", which is worse than nothing. Leibniz 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep say that all that exists is a single badly made and designed prototype (which might not be the case) that it had made no significance militarily or industrially; even than this article is still worth keeping. The UK's Royal Armouries used to keep a pattern room which they used to try and have at least one example of every firearm possible, however badly made, designed or insignificant, the purpose was to illustrate different approaches to the same goal, and the approach for this weapon is definately unique, we can aspire to do the same. The problem with deleting this article and rewriting when relaible sources can be found is that it just won't work, we rely on the community at large , many casual passerbys, to edit and create our content,unless the article exists there is no way for editors to know that the article need improving. I'd be far happier removing content that editors believe is unsubstantiated and to be re-introduced as sources are found than to delete KTo288 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep It was a REAL prototype. It introduced the concept of letting the rifle recoil within the receiver as in the HK G11 rifle that came after it. If we delete this article, we'd need to delete the information on Project SALVO and SPIW as well. While obscure, there are alot more obscure things that have successfully endured AFD scrutiny.--Asams10 04:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment For some reason, Parsecboy has been deleting the Pribor wikilink from other articles before this AfD has finished, e.g. AK-47, AK-74, SA80. Geoff B 05:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed that. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I was deleting them because Jetwave was just spamming the links to articles it has nothing to do with. Why would you put the Pribor under a "See also" for a Romanian copy of the AK47? The two are totally unrelated. I'll be removing them again, when I have the time. Parsecboy 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The first time you also deleted the links from articles like List of weapons influenced by the Kalashnikov design and List of Russian weaponry, that clearly were appropriate. Thanks for leaving those in place the second time and I agree with you that links should be deleted from really unrelated articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep - After some of my own poking around, I am fairly convinced it was real, even if only a prototype. It being obscure it irrelevant. However, the article does probably need some reworking to illustrate the lack of intel on this weapon. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep and comment - I've AfDed a lot of unnecessary articles that user Jetwave Dave has created. This one is not one of them. I say keep it. I think its pretty clear it is a real weapon, despite the fact that the only facts surrounding it are speculative at best. My comment therefore is to create an article dedicated to obscure Soviet small arms projects. That way everyone gets what they want. Jetwave Dave gets a home for all these things, and we're not flooded with a dozen perpetual stubs. I think that's a win-win to be honest. I think we just need to be more creative in terms of article creation, rather than creating this tiny articles for everything under the sun. Things with few facts can and should be grouped. There are all sorts of good examples of this. Even variants sections in many articles is a good example of this. I'm still trying to compile information for one on US Aircrew Survival Rifles, instead of making stubs for every one of them. -- Thatguy96 07:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A proper article on Soviet prototypes would be great. Sections could be added as sources are found. Unsourced gamecruft and nn trivia should be deleted on sight. Leibniz 12:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to such an article. However, like Leibniz stated, sources would be required. If sources can be provided, then all the better. That's all I was pushing for initially, anyways. Parsecboy 13:37, 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 speedied. android 79 17:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captain (Historical and Romantic)

Essay Ma x im 14:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh; wow. Not only is this a textbook example of original research, but it's historically inaccurate, besides. A very strange argument that makes no distinction between the army rank Captain and the captain of a ship--someone got lost in semantics here. Delete, speedily if possible. Heather 16:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Orignal Research if there ever was. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 16:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete; Wikipedia is not for pseudo-intellectual navel-gazing. EyeSerene^TALK 17:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "To be born with the gift of laughter, and the sense that the world was mad"

I'd like to thank the members of the Cabal for their destruction of a work in progress; I make no complaints, as I have come to expect little else- those of us following my progress across the Wikiscape (TM) will be aware of what I mean. I am impressed with the speed of this particular.... deletion, and the precision with which the Members of the Bored were apparently bussed in. As I say, I will move on to bigger and better, because I beleive in a Free Wiki for all, and Liberty and Justice for Etc. For those interested, every single word was reserched, documented and verifiable. And unfinished. Those with an interest (all of you apparently) can find this out for yourselves. The Context itself should be more than clear to the confused that the material refers not only to Land based military, but also to mercenary action, as well as those items which make reference to the term Captain as a title in other useage. (Can a Ship's Captain really marry people ?) As to Navel Gazing ? a mite personal, no ? (Nice userpages people !) I will leave this here as I can clearly see what I'm up against. The interested may find the article under construction on my user page. I hope to see you there; It'll be open house. Please bring an open mind ?

(No; Ships Captains have never had the power to marry people unless they have some further qualification.)

Captain Richard Cohen, B.Sc (Hons) Oxon. MA (Hons)The Stealth Ranger 09:47, 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 merge to 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack, with no prejudice against recreation if he gains further notability. A redirect is being formed. I will leave it up to interested editors to figure out precise merge details. JoshuaZ 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Smeaton (baggage handler)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John Smeaton (baggage handler)

Articles for deletion/John Smeaton (baggage handler) (2nd nomination)

A BLP violation for a person notable for just one event; we can shout COATRACK and various other things too. This person does not deserve his own article and it will never be a biography. He had a moment of fame on the Internet and does deserve inclusion - in the 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack not in an article of his own. Survived an AFD a month and a half ago - let us hope that anons don't come and ruin the precedings this time. violet/riga (t) 14:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, my choice is to delete the article. Some content may be merged into the article noted above but this does not need a redirect because of the unlikelihood that the full title would be typed in - just include a note atop John Smeaton. violet/riga (t) 16:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would still think a redirect would be more appropriate. He is a baggage handler, and it complies with WP:MOS.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Did you read my comments on the WT:HARM and the John Smeaton talk page? Anyway, as the user who suggested these things less than an hour ago, I suggest a merge and redirect to part of the 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack article with the section headlined as John Smeaton.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But yes, it fails WP:BLP1E, WP:COATRACK and WP:PSEUDO, although deletion is not the answer. You could have been bold and done this yourself, although it was my idea and I didn't want to...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Although having said that, you could make a case that the Kafeel Ahmed and Mohammed Asha articles suffer from the exact same problems.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Discussion is always a great thing to do. The merge would've been reverted and could've led to further disputes. violet/riga (t) 14:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could be right there, but I don't think many Wikipedians would favour outright deletion over a merge...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And I don't either, but this is the best place to discuss such a thing. violet/riga (t) 14:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

While there is some information that is relevant, the whole thing is inappropriate. merge and redirect to 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack. Consider protecting the redirect. Circeus 14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I was thinking of a protected redirect too - that is, if anyone still remembers John Smeaton after his 15 minutes of fame.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Merge per WP:NOT#NEWS - This guy's known for one event, with little historic notability for him. He should be mentioned in the main article, but does not need a page for a 1 event celebrity. Corpx 15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge, per Corpx - Nabla 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge and redirect (without deleting), because really well-referenced article and individual involved with event that attracted widespread media attention. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please see my note at the top about the unlikelihood that anyone would type in such an article title. violet/riga (t) 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also see my comment refuting that.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete The individual has no notability outside this one event. There is no long-term historical notability here. --Malcolmxl5 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per above. Sure, he achieved media glorification but is that a claim to notability? Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'd strongly consider the delete voters to consider agreeing to merging the content about him into the attack article as part of the media response.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember this being up before whilst the newsprint was still wet... the acid test was always going to be long-term notability, which this has failed (per Malcolmxl5 above). I'd prefer delete, but will support a merge to 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack if that's the way this discussion goes. EyeSerene^TALK 16:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'd go along with the merge, but as EyeSerene says, I'd prefer a delete. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 18:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Another comment. Smeaton didn't just help the police and people injured by the bomb, he launched a flying kick against Bilal Abdullah. I think that's relevant to the attack itself.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not notable. You may merge some info though.--Svetovid 20:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Notability is defined as being 'worthy of attracting notice'. John Smeaton is clearly notable given the media coverage. Whether he merits a biography, on the other hand, is another matter.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete or Merge per WP:NOT#NEWS. He is notable for his heroic actions, and got a splash of publicity afterwards. A short mention in the article on the attack would be appropriate. Newsworthy but not encyclopedic. Edison 22:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge while currently slightly "notable", this will dissipate. Jmlk 1 7 04:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The current consensus is that notability does not decrease over time; it can only be cumulative - it either stays of a fixed notability or increases with more WP:RS published about the topic.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep on the unusual ground for a keep, that WP NOT CRYSTAL. Who can say the importance will dissipate, and on the basis of what sources? He's important now. This was not exactly a minor crime that he prevented, and the public and the press are quite right that it was important. His character as the archetypical Glaswegian is rather notable also.. DGG (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. We should merge it for now, but he can get a full biography in future if he becomes notable for anything else. This, however, seems unlikely as he has returned to his day job.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is better suited if it is merged as explained above, not notable outside of this event.--JForget 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete/Merge - per notability. ps Maybe in a few years this can be revisited? --Tom 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep I see no reason why a sourced, referenced article about someone covered at length by multiple, independent non-trivial sources should be deleted. I have a sneaking suspicion this is our old friend systemic bias again; why are we not having this discussion about Todd Beamer? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- This was nominated by a Brit. Nominate Todd Beamer and I think you may well get a similar result to the unanimous keep two years ago - the difference is that Beamer has had recognition in the form of a school being named after him. violet/riga (t) 17:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  - I'll decline that challenge - for the first time in months my talk page only has one person complaining about my mean & nasty deletionism. As a veteran of some of the all-time great AfD catfights (albeit, I did manage to stay out of the most impressive of them all), let someone else get shouted at for once... — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep or at the very least Merge & Redirect into the main article on the attack. I tend to agree with User:Iridescent about the possibilities for violation of WP:CSB and can't help thinking that what we have here is merely a UK version of Wesley Autrey. The only policy-based reason for deletion that I can see is WP:BLP1E - but, like Autrey, the sources about him have extended outside his actual involvement in the event, this time into the realms of citizens fighting back against crime in general. ELIMINATORJR 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable baggage handler 24.60.163.16 08:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep- a notable Scottish hero, with notable achievements in his field, and since the attacks. He will continue to be notable in Scotland for his heroism. Astrotrain 08:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Even me knowing his name makes him notable as far as I'm concerned! Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge with the article on attack.Harlowraman 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge. If his entire claim for notability comes from the 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, then his story should be told there, succinctly and simply. If, however, he ends up being Knighted as Sir John Smeaton by The Queen, or otherwise given high official honors on a national level from the Parliament or a Ministry or other governmental body, then he begins to become notable on his own. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:27, 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. John254 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antwan "Amadeus" Thompson

Unsourced bio of a living person, which lacks media coverage Addhoc 13:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep per added references. Borderline notability. --Evb-wiki 14:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - thanks for adding the references, I'll withdraw the nomination if no-one objects. Addhoc 14:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Meets notability standards. I wouldn't want to be called a hip-hop producer, but Mr Thompson probably won't regard the label as defamation. Piccadilly 19:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable enough, surely.--Bedivere 21:22, 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. Singu larity 07:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tristan Tondino

NN painter, fails WP:BIO. Prodded, deleted and recreated. Leibniz 13:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless sources are found to give significant coverage Corpx 15:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BIO--Yannick 15:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete definately not notable enough --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:NN, fails WP:BIO, and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Bedivere 21:23, 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. Singu larity 07:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Majin Xezeveir

This article is a recreation of a speedy deleted article by a indef. blocked user. It is also possibly a hoax article. The article was previously speedy deleted under CSD#G1. nat^tang 12:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It isn't entirely clear what this article is about (I'm guessing a cartoon character), let alone whether the subject is notable. It is completely unverifiable and, at least in the present form, unencyclopaedic. Jakew 13:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless real world notability can be found Corpx 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete No reliable secondary sources, therefore fails WP:FICT.--Yannick 15:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Okay, this isn't even close to true. I'm a fan of the Dragon Ball series. The picture on the bottom, is clearly labeled Goku_superman.jpg. Aside from that, the entire article is false, the timelines make no sense at all. Delete it ASAP. GlassCobra 07:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Things like this are why there should be speedy delete conditions for obvious hoaxes. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment If the result is delete, could we get this thing salted to prevent recreation? nat^tang 14:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Looks like a hoax to me.--Bedivere 21:24, 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. WP:V is not negotiable. Every article must have reliable sources, and nobody here has produced any. Sandstein 13:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belarusian Wikipedias

This article has no third-party sources. Without third party sources, it's unverifiable. It contains no claim to notability under the relevant standard. Much of the content is arguably unencyclopedic minutiae. Being a wikipedia does not except it from our normal policies and guidelines. deranged bulbasaur 11:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This search turns up messages to mailing lists, results from wikipedia itself, and a couple blog posts, but nothing promising. deranged bulbasaur 12:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete; not particularly badly-formed as an article, but still can't pass WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and (especially) WP:ASR. Heather 16:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Random nomination of one of a set of articles. It is highly likely that there are independent sources in Belarusian (which aren't going to show up by searching google using the Latin alphabet). RegRCN 19:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please see WP:WAX. Mass nomination of these articles failed in the past with posters saying that the articles are substantially different and should be nominated separately, so what other recourse is there? If you were to peruse my contribution history, you'd find that I've nominated two others like this, so it's not as though I'm picking on one in particular. If there are sources, let them be produced. We can't keep based on the vague promise that there may be sources that none of us can read. Other language sources are perfectly acceptable if they exist, but we can't expect editors to take them into account unless they are enumerated. If that were the case, all Afd activity would be effectively paralyzed because no prospective nominator can search for sources in all languages. deranged bulbasaur 20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ASR and WP:RS. This is basically nothing more than the internal history of the Belarussian Wikipedia. I fail to see how this is notable. Resolute 21:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Every Wikipedia deserves an article in every other one.--Bedivere 21:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, how else will anyone understand why there are two Belarusian Wikipedias if not for this article? - MTC 15:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedias are no inherently notable, therefore sources must be provided to show how they are notable. Failure here means there is no notability. Nuttah68 11:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom not notable.Harlowraman 17:06, 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. Singu larity 07:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shonk

Prod removed by author (who has made no other contributions) without comment. No sources. Supposedly about a genre of music, but I can't find any sources to support this. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unverifiable. Accurizer 12:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete; looks like a hoax or local-interest piece. Heather 16:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete probable hoax --Bedivere 21:25, 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 Keep. ¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 11:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Burgan

Article reads more like a resume/curriculum vitae than an encyclopedic article. Found on a stint at newpage patrolling. Missing citations. Does have an IMDB profile, but may not pass WP:BIO due to lack of third party WP:RS. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral How much weight should we give to that award and his participation in the making of the documentary? Corpx 15:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I started this article, so I won't vote. I did mark it as a stub, so I'm surprised to see the deletion proposal. I've just expanded it a bit and inserted footnotes for the various sources. @Corpx: His participation? He made the documentary. Is that not clear from the text? I've also linked to a list of all the major festivals the film played at. Burgan's work is usually shown on high-profile feature-length documentary slots by various European broadcasters. Eos79 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Added information on broadcasters and newspaper sources to satisfy WP:RS Eos79 16:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems notable enough with the added sources. bobanny 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems a substantial figure.--Bedivere 21:26, 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 keep. John254 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elwood (American musician)

Lack of notabilty as per WP:Notability (music) WebHamster 10:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Clearly satisfies criterion #1. I never heard of the band, but after it was tagged for speedy deletion I searched for some sources and added them to the article. It has "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." All cited sources have an article in Wikipedia. Mel sa ran 12:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - PR puff pieces in online music "webzines" (MTV.com included) are hardly notable, it's marketing, nothing more. The Amazon.com entry is simply a source of purchasing the artist's only CD. This artist has won no awards, has only one CD released (7 years ago and nothing since!). This is not the material of encyclopaedias. Maybe in a few years when he has actually made a substantial impact on the music industry in general, until then this entry is more suited to Allmusic, not Wikipedia. WebHamster 13:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If he'd released a second album, or if there was more media coverage, I'd say keep. Precious Roy 14:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Yannick 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. Kinda marginal, but according to billboard.com he has charted, which seems to meet WP:MUSIC. Seattlenow 02:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. He charted at number 33 on what I believe is the official American chart which can be used to determine these things. Therefore, he passes the cited criterion. He should also be strung up for crimes against music, since his album is close to unlistenable, but sadly that doesn't mean that he's non-notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per BigHaz and article's added reference. Precious Roy 11:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Meets criterion #2 as pointed out by BigHaz. Thanks for the research!--Yannick 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mike Sherman Show

Notability. This TV show does not stand out from any other and is not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article WebHamster 10:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep Even though it may not stand out, but some of the links in that page do give the significant coverage required Corpx 15:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep There is no requirement for TV shows, or anything else, to "stand out" to have an article. "Standing out" is a purely subjective criterion, and therefore unusable. Piccadilly 19:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Response - I was using "stand out" as a simile of "notability", they basically mean the same thing. Neither the show nor the show's host has received any industry awards or anything similar (or haven't been mentioned in the article). Mentions in articles similar to those referenced are de rigeur for any TV show (multimedia announces multimedia etc) so in themselves are nothing notable other than successful marketing. Is WP to become a TV guide for any programme that has a few thousand viewers? WebHamster 21:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

- You got to love WP's sarcastic attitude. They seem to think that they have a say over who is notable and who is not in the media world. Get a life WP. You ain't all that.
Keep Webhamster, why do you say "a few thousand viewers" on 18 Aug above, when the day before (17 Aug) on the discussion page of The Mike Sherman Show, you said "100,000s of viewers is small-fry in the world of TV." You're obviously not a fan of hip-hop but why are you trying so hard to stop the programme from having a WP entry? The fact is, the show had 300,000 weekly viewers over 2 years ago [27] and Mike is currently in talks to syndicate his show all over the US and internationally so its popularity is obviously growing. I also looked through the Category:Hip_hop_television and found only one other TV show listed still broadcasting that is doing something similar (Rap City (TV series)) so the show is rather rare whilst hip-hop is "among best-selling genres of music" (quote taken from hiphopgenrebox on hip-hop). Therefore, according to the rules of Speedy Keep where "A page may be speedily kept only if one or more of the following holds: 1. No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted...", which is the case as far as I can tell, can The Mike Sherman Show be speedily kept, or at least taken off the articles for deletion list?Johnalexwood 01:02, 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 Speedy delete a1 empty, WP:NEO, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 11:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irralogical

Non-notable neologism Q ^{T C} 09:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Someone's attempt at trying to create a new word. WebHamster 10:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete WP:SNOW. Weregerbil 10:37, 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 delete. Singu larity 07:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Pike (writer)

Non-notable freelance journalist, photographer, etc. Also possible WP:COI as creator is a WP:SPA. Clarityfiend 08:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete no notability stated, google search doesnt show much --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable person, probably vanity. Oyster guitarist 20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Only the reference to his work appearing in "many national newspapers and magazines" saves it from an A7 speedy. --MCB 06:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination.--Bedivere 21:27, 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 withdrawn by nominator. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Green Dragon

I am also nominating the following related articles

These articles cite no secondary sources and I do not believe any could be found – they therefore fail the primary notability criteria (WP:NN) and as there is no real world content (apart from namesakes which don't seem like a criteria for inclusion) the notability criteria for fiction (WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT#INFO) and this may count as fancruft. Middle-earth may be notable but that does not mean that every establishment within it is, notability is not inherited. The article may contain information deemed useful to some but that does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. Guest9999 07:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep all and merge where needed. Please see Category:Wikiproject Middle-earth to be merged, and the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth for the ongoing efforts at merging. This will take time, but has been proceding. For examples, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Models for merges for examples of list articles that have been created by merging. Give us time, and more of the ones above will be merged as well. Carcharoth 10:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep all and merge where needed. The content of the articles is important, but could most likely serve its purpose on a page which lists minor structures in Arda. The information available on these subjects is not going to increase in size so they most likely do not need an entire article devoted to them. Keeping the articles for now and allowing the Middle-earth project to have time to merge the articles is probably the best solution in my opinion. --Hyarion 13:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Carcharoth. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination and close without prejudice - I still think that they violate several policies, WP:NN, WP:FICT, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT#INFO, etc. but maybe at this stage an AfD isn't the best way to sort out the problems. [[Guest9999 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]
Delete & USERFY all to the Middle Earth WP and have them merge at their discretion, but at this point, it is failing WP:N and WP:FICT in lacking real world significant coverage from reliable sources Corpx 15:42, 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 withdrawn by nominator. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bay of Andúnië

I am also nominating the following related articles

These article cite no secondary sources and I do not believe any could be found – they therefore fail the primary notability criteria (WP:NN) and as there is no real world content the notability criteria for fiction (WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT#INFO) and this may count as fancruft. Middle-earth may be notable but that does not mean that every geographical detail about it is, notability is not inherited. The article may contain information deemed useful to some but that does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. Guest9999 07:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep all and merge where needed. Please see Category:Wikiproject Middle-earth to be merged, and the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth for the ongoing efforts at merging. This will take time, but has been proceding. For examples, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Models for merges for examples of list articles that have been created by merging. Give us time, and more of the ones above will be merged as well. Carcharoth 10:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep all and merge where needed. Having a dedicated article for each and every thing mentioned above may be excessive for a general-knowledge encyclopedia, there are always fan wikis, like Wookieepedia for Star Wars, which can go into the detail. The Middle-earth WikiProject is short of volunteers so I think the best solution at this point is allow them time to merge the minor articles before taking any drastic steps such as deleting the information. --Hyarion 13:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Carcharoth. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination and close without prejudice - I still think that they violate several policies, WP:NN, WP:FICT, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT#INFO, etc. but maybe at this stage an AfD isn't the best way to sort out the problems. [[Guest9999 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]
Delete & USERFY all to the Middle Earth WP and have them merge at their discretion, but at this point, it is failing WP:N and WP:FICT in lacking real world significant coverage from reliable sources Corpx 15:42, 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. Singu larity 07:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cult classics

This article is an indiscriminate collection of information as it has no inclusion criteria. It could also be considered a loosely-associated list and a collection of internal links. This list could never really be maintained because inclusion is so vague and also constitutes original research. Useight 07:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. Very crufty, vague and very likely original research. Thin Arthur 07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as inclusion into this list is based on original research Corpx 07:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I.e. indiscriminate even if sourced and as it stands a mass of OR. Eluchil404 07:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment. This list had been part of cult classic for years until i moved it to its own page today. It seems strange that it was tolerated for so long as part of an article, but on its own faces strong resistance. Is there anything i could do to the page to make it acceptable for Wikipedia? I don't have an opinion on whether or not it should be deleted, but as the person whose efforts started this whole process, i feel a responsibility to do what i can for the article. Foobaz·o< 08:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the main article (Cult classic) could list a few of the more notable items from this list, however, I believe List of cult classics is going to be hard to save. Perhaps with some concrete inclusion criteria that cuts the list down to size and some verifiable sources, it could possibly avoid deletion, but doubtful. Useight 08:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What if i went through and looked for references describing an item as a cult classic, kept only those i found a reference for, and added the reference with <ref></ref>? Would that be enough to keep the article? It would be a hell of a lot of work, so i don't want to proceed unless i get positive feedback. Foobaz·o< 08:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt, but I don't know if it would save it. You're right that it would take a lot of time but maybe if multiple people vote "clean up" instead of "strong delete" it could show potential. I'm only one person, so I don't carry a lot of clout, but I'd recommend first trying to hammer out a solid inclusion criteria. I'd help out, but it's 1:25AM and I'm getting really tired. Useight 08:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about an article that is essentially a "list of films that someone, somewhere has described as a 'cult classic'". However, if the descriptions themselves have been noted by other sources (for example, see [28]), that would seem less of a problem. Jakew 12:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge This was split off from Cult classic, where it was probably quite safe. Once you make it into a separate article, however, this article can rightly be criticized because "cult classic" essentially is a matter of opinion. We tend to label films that we love to see again and again, and which we find someone else enjoyed (not too hard to find that on the Internet), as cult classics. More cynically, if it's a film I like that noboby else has ever heard of, it's a "cult classic". If this is to stay, then it would be easy to refer to some sources. Since most of this looks like original research right now, maybe the criterion should be something arbitrary, such as a film on which there is agreement in written sources, such as one that's mentioned in at least three "cult classic" books. Mandsford 14:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per Thin Arthur. Can only be POV.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete- these types of lists are always problematic because of non-existing criteria.--Svetovid 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above and the VERY similar discussion previously held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films--nearly the same list. A big part of the problem is the definition--historically 'cult classic' has referred to works that initially flopped (and/or were initially rejected by mainstream audiences and/or critics) or were very obscure, but were brought to light by a 'cult' following (EG The Rocky Horror Picture Show or ~~Hairspray (1988 film)~~Pink Flamingos), NOT instant hits like the American Pie, Back to the Future, and Austin Powers series'. Seattlenow 23:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete per Seattlenow Bulldog123 05:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete There are indiscriminate lists, and this is an example--includes a great variety of things with nothing more in common than that there are groups of people who like them. Seattlenow's analysis is very much to the point, and anyone can add. This is not just a case of a few misplaced entries. DGG (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If this list can contain as alleged "cult classics" such hugely successful mainstream movies as Harry Potter and When Harry Met Sally, it's meaningless. --Tony Sidaway 10:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Cotton wool.--Bedivere 21:28, 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. Singu larity 07:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTHITB

Appears to be a non-notable acronym, and there are no sources provided to verify any of the information. Reydeyo 07:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Q ^{T C} 07:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, no assertion of notability and unattributable. Carlosguitar 07:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is obviously a joke, which seems to me to be enough of a reason to delete it, but then again, that's still not a good argument, so consider that there is no assertion of notability made whatsoever. Calgary 07:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete & BJAODN for desciptions of situations where it may be used and unnotability/lack of refs. Nate 09:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not even a candidate for a merger to a list of Internet slang due to lack of sourcing.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - this deserves a place in BJAODN.--Svetovid 20:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. But isn't BJAODN getting deleted? Calgary 20:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Although "I've never heard of it" isn't grounds for deletion, I do find it odd that I'm a girl who's been playing MMOs since 96, and I've never heard this acronym once...spazure (contribs)
Delete Silly.--Bedivere 21:29, 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 Speedily deleted by user:Phil Sandifer. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Earl

This is a disputed prod; the rationale was "private individual involved in a single incident of local intrigue, not notable to the point of inclusion in an encyclopedia, requesting deletion OTRS" Kappa 06:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete As I see it, the subject has had no non-local coverage, and has not had a significant non-local effect on anything, so there's a strong lack of notability. Calgary 06:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - too local to be on the encyclopedia. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Fails WP:PSEUDO, WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E; if anyone could suggest an appropriate place then merge, otherwise delete.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. All coverage is local. The article exists merely to attack Julia Earl. -- Kainaw^(what?) 18:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a disputed prod. This was speediable, and I speedied it. I have re-speedied, as it was still speediable due to BLP issues, which were always the issue there. Phil Sandifer 01:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Solomon (statistician)

subject does not meet terms of WP:Notability and should be deleted as per several similar cases in this discussion BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

delete - Non-notable. I checked up on his umpiring, which might have justified keeping him, but he doesn't seem to have umpired in a first-class or List A match. JH (talk page) 16:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 06:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Given the decision in Andrew Samson, I'm surprised to find that this one is still going. Can we please have some contributions? Is it me or are AfD and CfD lacking interest these days? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment This is one that I skipped over, as a USian, because I simply have no idea whether the role is significant. Looks like it could use some sources, but I'm not really confident voting either way (but it would be "weak" in any case). --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete Even as a Englishman, I find this one difficult to assess! I have plumb for delete because, as a scorer and cricket statistician, it is unlikely that he was known outside a narrow group of people and so is not notable. He could be mentioned in either the MCC or ACS articles, I guess, if he was particularly known in those fields. --Malcolmxl5 00:23, 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 Redirected to Tonight, Tonight. ELIMINATORJR 14:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tonite Reprise

A particularly un-notable reprise of Tonight, Tonight, released as a b-side on its single. Does not pass WP:MUSIC. The KZA 05:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A straight failure of WP:MUSIC. fuzzy510 07:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 06:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete The song does not have any notability consistent with the standards set by WP:MUSIC.
Why is this on AFD? Merge/redirect, or just redirect. Kappa 06:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Kappa.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Kappa.--Yannick 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect, and if someone wants to add this info to Tonight, Tonight, go crazy. --Calton | Talk 11:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the harm in a redirect?--Yannick 02:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. WP:CRYSTAL states: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Six references are sufficient, I think. Singu larity 06:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Candy Shop (Madonna song)

No sources given stating that this is an upcoming single; snippet was supposedly leaked on the Internet. Complete speculation and crystal ballery. Admc2006 05:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Not comfirmed. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless sources found over leaking of the song Recurring dreams 07:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete even if it is leaked already, it should not be here, what if tomorrow the "Candy Shop" does not show up??? Wiki will have helped spreading a rumor.BalanceRestored 09:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Hirohisat, WP:CRYSTAL, but with no prejudice against recreation if it becomes notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all above --JForget 00:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep and merge into Madonna's forthcoming studio album. I've added several sources reporting the existence and leak of the song, so the content can be used in the main album article without violating WP:CRYSTAL or any other applicable policy or guideline. Extraordinary Machine 13:15, 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. Singu larity 06:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Jacqueline

This alchaholic beverage does not warrant an article in my opinion: it is heavily POV, no references, google gives nothing even remotely related to it, and it seems to be advertising several things/people. Therefore delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete The problem is that there is no assertion of the notability of the drink, and no citations by which we can verify the factuality of the article. I tried to clean up the POV/wording problems of the article, but some of them are still there, and it would be a lot easier to clean up if there were actual sources against which we could check the factuality of the article. Calgary 06:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per both of you. No sources, no article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nothing worth keeping.--Bedivere 21:30, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Vandalized article that was cleaned up. Non-admin closure. Resolute 06:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Bellinger

Reeks of WP:HOAX (attended a school for girls; born in London, but plays for Guyana internationally and is their top goalscorer?), but even if everything (save for the all-time goal scoring claim) is true, he's still not notable. Hasn't played at the top level of his sport. fuzzy510 05:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. After a quick check in the history, this is a case of vandalism on a legitimate article. Vandalism reverted, nomination invalid. --fuzzy510 05:59, 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. Singu larity 06:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Hargreaves

Completely non-notable person. Claim to fame is being related to multiple other people, which is by no means a grounds for notability. A clear failure of WP:BIO, in my eyes. fuzzy510 05:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Quite clearly fails WP:BIO.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No reliable secondary sources will be found for him--Yannick 16:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Deleteeven if there were sources it still isnt notable --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mowsbury 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete clearly fails BIO. Oyster guitarist 20:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Just the two ghits relating to Oswaldtwistle United JFC. Lacks multiple and significant sources. --Malcolmxl5 00:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete just another bloke who has a job and is involved with a youth organisation, like gazillions of other people up and down the country. Can we snowball this one.....? ChrisTheDude 06:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Number 5 7 08:12, 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. Singu larity 06:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As The Dust Settles, Revealing Those Seldom Seen

Non-notable book apparently published by a high school class. No sources of any kind, no Google hits. It's a class project. Realkyhick 04:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep http://www.tribune-democrat.com/local/local_story_311225548.html, also I would like to do an article on this project coming up. The same people are involved as the people from the Seldom Seen Mine Book project.

It has to do with our state and we, the staff of the project, have been awarded a sum of money only a few schools have been awarded around the country. Could you please read this short article and tell me what you think of a wikipedia.org page on this? Thank you. Gingysnap08 13:40, 03 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep http://www.tribune-democrat.com/scholasticshowcase/local_story_319134204.html, here is the site where a local newspaper has reported on the matter of the book project. There are copies being sent all over the state of Pennsylvania and one is going to Washington, D.C. for history reasons on our state. If this is not enough to have an article about the book, please let me know. Gingysnap08 13:37, 03 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete; very nice school project, which is the problem. — Coren ^(talk) 05:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete With no sources whatsoever it is impossible to verify that this book was ever actually published (by an actual and notable publisher, that is). It looks like a school project, and while there is a small possibility that it is not, without proper sources we have no way of knowing. Calgary 05:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable and apparently non-notable. Jakew 12:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep how can I prove to you all that this book exists? Should I give you the publisher's name or something? Gingysnap08 16:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment That would be helpful, yes. Also, if you could also supply details of third-party sources (newspaper articles, for example) that discuss it, that might be evidence of notability. Jakew 17:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment The third-party sources are really what we need. The notability criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia is not just whether or not something exists, but whether it has been important enough for other people to write about it in reliable secondary sources.--Yannick 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete with out sources it's hard to believe that this book exists and if it does it's not notable. Oyster guitarist 20:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless third-parts sources can be provided. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:59, 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 merge and redirect. Singu larity 06:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secrets (band)

The article has no body text and no information about the band can be located online to expand the article. The article has been tagged since the beginning of 2007 to be referenced and expanded, however it has not been edited since February and do not believe it can be expanded much beyond its present content. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Nothing at all to assert notability. Realkyhick 04:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy - A7; doesn't even claim to meet WP:BAND. — Coren ^(talk) 05:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Fails WP:N strongly. I also find it someone amusing that apparently the band includes a member who died in 1762, but played congas in a band with someone born in 1964. Possible hoax, or sloppy linking. --bfigura ^(talk) 05:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd give the benefit of the doubt to sloppy linking. I doubt it's a hoax: google can find some references to the band's existence, but blogs and trivial mentions only. — Coren ^(talk) 05:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I'm just amused by the results of the link-ing. bfigura ^(talk) 05:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I know it is definitely not a hoax because as a Dave Matthews Band fan, I can tell you that Dave Matthews, himself, and a lot of his other collaborators started out in this band, but I just don't think the article is notable, especially since not too much info about the band is known. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Merge into Dave Matthews Band. Passes WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles 6. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Expanded lead to indicate notability and provided sources. dissolve ^talk 06:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That bit then goes on to say "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such". Especially since we have a problem with verifiability (beyond Dave Matthews's participation), I don't think that is quite enough to keep an article— perhaps merge into Dave Matthews and change to an appropriate redirect? — Coren ^(talk) 15:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is only a stub, but it seems to be a good candidate for a merge under WP:MERGE#Merging 3. "short and is unlikely to be expanded" and possibly 4. "requires the background material or context from a broader article" dissolve ^talk 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge into one sentence in the history of the Dave Matthews Band article and redirect.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge per standing merge rationale. dr.ef.tymac 01:11, 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. DS 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cornelius Hansard

non-notable biography; possible hoax. No matching Google hits[29], unlikely that a MBE was chairman of the NRA. - Fordan (talk) 04:04, 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 Speedy Delete per criteria G11, spam. Eluchil404 07:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Increase

Per WP:CORP; "references" appear to be press releases or advertising. Kappa 03:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete, smells very spammy. Realkyhick 05:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy - G11; Looks like spam, links like spam, quacks like spam... — Coren ^(talk) 05:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That will probably work, I've tagged it. Kappa 05:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete written like spam. Oyster guitarist 06:44, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanos

Sanos doesn't have enough coverage to pass the notability guideline. Searching for sanos only finds unrelated links, non-3rd party links and trivial or unreliable (blog postings) references to sanos. --Android Mouse 20:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - Minor hits on G News, but I dont think any of them give significant coverage Corpx 06:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Week keep I think that there is barely enough, but it is hard.Zginder 23:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 03:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom Not Notable.Harlowraman 03:27, 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 due to lack of reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 09:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beacham Owen

A non-notable motorsports artist who had a brief motorsports career. Has a small connection to NBC/David Letterman. Also appears to be used as a vehicle of promotion for User:Jamesb01 to upload paintings by this artist under a possibly false CC license. The359 03:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Although not directly involving the notability of the page, the questionable pictures are similar to this photo uploaded under CC-BY-2.5 yet featured on Beacham Owen's website here as All Rights Reserved. The359 03:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no independent sources, overly promotional. I gotta admit, though, that's some nice-looking art. Realkyhick 05:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as per above. User:Jamesb01 has not responded to these concerns and continues to download credited images. JNW 20:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Credits removed, but without independent sources, and with the simultaneous planting of the subject's paintings in so many articles, the conclusion that this is primarily a promotional undertaking is unavoidable. JNW 05:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Keep, Yes, the article did sound too enthusiastic (I am a collector of the art) and thus sounded commercial. I have smoothed it out to be more encyclopedic. I also removed all images until I understand the license tagging better, and have talked to the studio. User:Jamesb01 09:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think WP:COI might be relevant here. The fact that you collect this person's work gives the appearance of a commercial motivation; the promotion of the work is to your advantage. As mentioned above, there are no independent sources, no scholastic or journalistic references. JNW 19:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, possible bad faith nom per article's talk page. WP:SNOW applies here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesusland map

Non-notable internet meme, no assertion of notability. RucasHost 03:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep, this is an extremely notable internet meme that received press coverage. Articles from reliable sources that discuss the map: The Atlantic, USA Today, Daily Variety, The Washington Times, Chicago-Sun Times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The New York Times, etc. There are even books devoted to the topic: [30]. --musicpvm 05:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this users edits, I believe this was a bad faith nomination. This topic is obviously notable, but the user seems to have personal issues with it. He/she states at Talk:Jesusland map: "Not everyone in Canada is a brain-dead liberal you know. I'm a Canadian and I consider American liberals to be some of the most disgusting and despicable people on Earth, Canadian liberals have many redeeming qualities, but American liberals are just self-hating baby-killing idiots." This AfD has absolutely nothing to do with notability, but everything to do with this user's personal bias. --musicpvm 05:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Concur. This verges on vandalism, given the user's history and clear bias. --bfigura ^(talk) 05:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment It's not my fault that none of those wonderful references were included in the article, maybe you should add them. --RucasHost 09:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, per musicpvm. The article could use some sources, but its subject is an extremely notable meme. ichor}mosquito{ 05:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep, per musicpvm. It would be great if someone could work these sources into the article. bfigura ^(talk) 05:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - as the others. Lets get some sources though. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment It is most unfortunate that this article no longer has the actual Jesusland map on it. I presume that the image was deleted? I would think that it would be considered Fair Use, given the meme is extremely difficult to visualize without the actual image that spawned it. Resolute 06:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Frivolous nom, no research was done before starting this AfD. Reinis^talk 11:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per musicpvm and please, just snowball close this already. Rucas, it is your responsibility to check for references before nominating an article. At least perform a Google search next time. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep it could use some sources. Oyster guitarist 20:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (copyvio). --- RockMFR 03:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Love Stinks (Frasier episode)

I prodded this with the following concern: Wikipedia is not a place to dump plot summaries of television episodes, but should provide real-world context and sourced analysis. Prod was removed without a comment, so I'm listing it here. Mel sa ran 03:05, 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.. CitiCat ^♫ 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MyDataBus

This was originally deleted as CSD G11 spam. DRV overturned, in light of new sources (for which, see the DRV.) Still, weak delete, given notability and WP:COI concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 02:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Reads like an advert. All cited sources are either the MyDataBus official site or the MyDataBus blog site. A couple of internet reviews, one in Spanish, are the only secondary sources. No credible assertion of notability. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 05:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons given by SheffieldSteel above. If this hadn't just come from DRV I would argue that speedy deletion criteria A7 (no assertion of notability) and G11 (advertising) apply. While an article on this site that conforms to our guidelines might be possible if reliable, independent sources exist, the current article would not be much help in writing it. It is important to Wikipedia's credibility and mission that we decisively remove all spam and so the current rendition of this article should be deleted. Eluchil404 06:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think this article was ever "blatant advertising," but I toned down the promotional language slightly. The article is rich with factual information, and making myDataBus sound good is not a reason to exclude factual information. I think the WP:COI suggestion is unlikely, considering the large user base. myDataBus has about a gazillion reviews across the web, e.g. this and this. It is also connected to groups like Zoho and Zamzar, hence some spillover notability (e.g., [31], [32]). Also has decent Google hits and Alexa ranking, indicating a general high level of attention on the web. And over 100,000 users is not too shabby. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I extended the "Press" section and added third-party references. Ollie990 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non notable. If independent reliable sources are provided I will reconsider. Nuttah68 11:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable.Harlowraman 17:05, 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 deleted by Splash as G11. Non-admin close after speedy deletion by admin. KTC 00:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zeros 2 Heroes

Advertorial article on new (7/23) website. Multiple sources are included, but most mentions of the company are tangential to coverage of the production of a series of animated films. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 02:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete G11. Sources are reliable and independent, but coverage is not significant. This is just spam.--Yannick 16:22, 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian evangelist scandals

Unnessecary list, obvious POV fork. RucasHost 13:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete for violating WP:NPOV by establishing a pattern of misconduct by a certain group of people. The information should be mentioned in each individual's article. Shalom ^Hello 13:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - An article whose subject is a POV is perfectly legitimate if the "point-of-view subject is presented neutrally". Although this might not be the case here, the article could be retuned to be more of a neutral presentation of these controversies. Maybe "Christian evangelist controversies" would be a less biased title? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with User:Shalom. I don't think changing the title alone will help, the idea behind this article is fundamentally flawed. We don't have Atheist controversies or Islamic scandals articles, and for good reason. Likewise, we shouldn't have a Christian evangelist scandals article either. The content can be merged into the articles about the various evangelists mentioned in the article. --RucasHost 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check Controversies related to Islam and Muslims. I'm not aware of any scandals related to Atheism though. FrozenPurpleCube 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Manticore hit it on the nose. Controversies related to Islam and Muslims is a perfect example. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ per WP:SYNTH - You cant take a bunch of unrelated facts and tie them up to paint a broad picture. Mention these in the appropriate articles about the person, but not all together like this to make a point Corpx 14:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can do that. Such Synthesis is appropriate, and commonly used in the real world. The objection is to synthesis on Wikipedia as opposed to using existing synthesis on the subject on Wikipedia. And that's where the difference lies. FrozenPurpleCube 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be one thing if there were articles doing the synthesis themselves, and covering all the subjects in one article. That would be acceptable, but this is a bunch of individual stories that are not connected to each other. Corpx 01:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There are articles doing the synthesis themselves. I did a search and found plenty. If the current contents of this page aren't good enough, it's a cleanup issue. FrozenPurpleCube 01:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Which articles are you basing the synthesis on? Corpx 03:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ones like [33][34][35]. These indicate just in the brief sample bits that there's a coverage of the overall subject out there. Probably some books as well. FrozenPurpleCube 03:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The only one I could read was the NYT one and it does indeed link 5 (the majority) of the people in the article; however, I do not think this should be a blank check to keep adding scandals as they happen. Corpx 05:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable concern, but one that's a editing issue, not a deletion one. FrozenPurpleCube 05:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It appears to be sourced, albeit one-sided as well. The facts are not "unrelated" as they all have three things in common ("Chrisitians", "evangelists", and "scandalous behaviour").Vice regent 15:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

By unrelated, I meant that the events are not related to each other. Corpx 15:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Corpx, would it not be a fair compromise to rename this article "List of Christian evangelist scandals", similar to "List of converts to Christianity", that contains unrelated conversions?Vice regent 15:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep - controversy articles are not necessarily POV forks. This is just a list of similar occurrences and their circumstances. I think the sources are decent, and not one-sided -- how do you balance things were the people involved don't do much more than confess their sins and beg forgiveness from God and their former congregations? ←Ben^B4 15:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The events aren't related, but the people are. Evangelist scandals are a frequent subject in pop culture, and are commonly referred to collectively. The article is somewhat POV; that means it needs to be fixed, not deleted. Cap'n Walker 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as there is enough coverage of the subject (as opposed to the individual scandals: [36] to tell me there's potential for an article. I have no objection to renaming or seeing elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, move to a neutral title. `'Míkka 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Manticore. Edison 20:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the reasoning of Shalom and Corpx above. Deor 22:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Almost all of these are notable. Jesus Himself preached about hypocrites who made a show of how religious they were, but who didn't walk the walk. Mandsford 00:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, do not retitle No better title for a list of Christian Evangelicals involved in scandals, and theres enough of those of note to more than justify coverage of it as a phenomena. Any individual POV issues should be dealt with individually, and strictly, since WP:BIO applies, but since this article has had a lot of attention already from people looking to delete things under WP:BIO that shouldn't be a probelm. Artw 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, article is well-referenced, and the topic receives much coverage in the mainstream media. --musicpvm 04:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Very strong Delete We have enough POV and BLP difficulties with individual articles. If the subject is thought encyclopedic, then the paragraphs on individual people must go. But there is not the slightest basis for that at this tim--no references are provided for that, and no discussion. Personally, I think it is speedy as G10, article primarily devoted to disparage the subject. DGG (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this is an attack page, I'd suggest replacing it with a stub instead of deleting. The subject itself is still notable and reasonable for an article. And in case you didn't see, I provided references above. FrozenPurpleCube 11:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Question What is the point in the paragraphs on the individual people, when we have articles explaining the circumstances more fully and in the detail required for BLP, unlike the brief mentions here with minimal sourcing? It's hard enough doing NPOV for BLP without trying to get it into a single paragraph. DGG (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I think that the page pretty much needs a rewrite from the top myself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Apparently I stubbed this article, though its been so long I dont remember ... let me look at the history... January 2003! No wonder. Im sure everyone has thus far said everything there is to say, though I'd like to see the mischaracterisations ("attack page[!!]") beaten down a little bit. But the subject is no doubt notable, even if the title seems a bit clumsy. Similarly, I find the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases title to be a bit unncessarily focused on one particular religious denomination. Apparently theres some research to back this up:

"Philip Jenkins, an Episcopalian and Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State University, published the 1996 book Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis in which he claims that the Catholic Church is being unfairly singled out by a secular media which he claims fails to highlight similar sexual scandals in other religious groups, such as the Anglican Communion, various Protestant churches, and the Jewish and Islamic communities... ¡Read more!"

So... Anglicans aren't perfect either, I guess. As a suggestion, and I don't want people to jump on this (in favor or against), is to generalize the topic more - Sex scandals involving religious officials or something thelike. This comes as part of a general philosophy of extrapolating things to their most... general, and then filling in the details from the top down as things progress. Certainly I dont think it would be appropriate to say "the anti-Catholic article is fine, but the anti-Protestant" article is just an attack article." I would have to raise the big >>¡hypocrite!<< flag if anyone thought that. -Ste vertigo 23:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Should be part of an article that includes other religions as well. Brusegadi 05:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Rename - perhpas to "disgraced televangelists". That appears to be the subject matter; of a few of those named do not fall into that category, they should be removed. We cannot have articles on every Christian minister, who is sent to prison or found in bed with the wrong woman (or man), only those who are notable (or at least notorious). Paedophile Priests are not relevant, as they are (generally) not evangelists: they are a separate problem, which should be dealt with in a separately. Peterkingiron 22:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep - This could be converted to a category, but it is acceptable as an article. It will need constant POV attention and general attention to its form. I think the topic is valid by Manticore's argument. flyingdics 14:14 16 August 2007
Delete violates WP:NPOV Harlowraman 23:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There's nothing that specifically ties these events together, except their job, and as such, writing an article that encompasses them all is pointless. Move the mentioned scandals to a subcategory of Category:Religious scandals if you want (they're currently all in the parent category, as far as I could tell), that's a better way of handling topics that are loosely related in some way. - Bobet 09:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete/listify/categorize. No point in creating an umbrella article if it inherently allows far less context and content than living people and neutrality policies allow.-Wafulz 12:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Televangelism - the bios are a bad idea because the scandals are presented out of context and thus fail WP:BLP. Further, the selection of the people is arbitrary and thus also POV. Remove the bios and the uncited statements from the lead leaves nothing left; not even a stub. Where then to go? Well, these is a perfectly decent section at Televangelism#Scandals. Sure it needs sourcing but it has good potential. That section should be allowed to develop organically and can be broken out again, into a separate article, if it grows too big as a normal editorial action. TerriersFan 16:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete per Bobet and Corpx's reasoning. Although the individual incidents are notable, the compilation is not. I agree that it appears to be bordering on an attack page. You could just as easily do a page called "Democratic sex scandals" or "Scandals by people named Bill." The only reason to group these together is to suggest a noteworthy connection, and there just isn't one. JCO312 17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, do you find "Controversies related to Islam and Muslims" a noteworthy connection? If so, how is it "more" noteworthy than controversies related to Christian evangelism? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, a page about controversies that are related to Islam is one thing. If it were a page called Controversies by Muslims then I would say it should be deleted. The difference is that there is no connection here between the scandals and Christian evangelism. Again, if we went and found all the scandals with people named Bob and made that a list, would that be worth keeping? JCO312 04:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep and make NPOV OR Convert to category Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep - I'm fine with it as long as we're giving other faiths' scandals/controversies, such as Islam, equal treatment. Listing all of it in Televangelism#Scandals is somewhat inaccurate since not all of these people are televangelists. Putting people in a category called Christian scandals is problematic to me, since although these people have been part of scandals, the people themselves are not the scandals. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:31, 18 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 ^♫ 02:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete I have a strong dislike of televangelists, and so ordinarily wouldn't comment here, but would privately enjoy any article that exposed the truth of their frauds. This article, however, is a literal "laundry list": it has only the loosest cohesion, with a paragraph about each, and no supporting text to provide a uniting purpose. This makes it unencyclopedic, although a category serving the same purpose would work. The article might be salvageable, but it would require major rewriting. Xoloz 03:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't think there is necessarily a problem with and article about Christian evangelist scandals, as such scandals have helped influence the representation of Christian evangelists in popular media, and the overall perception of Christian evangelists in contemporary culture. I also don't object to the inclusion of a list in the article, as it is both relevant to the subject, and helps organization (if someone wants to find out more about a particular scandal, they can use the list). However, that being said, I do not support the current revision of the article, as the list goes into too much detail about each individual case. Yes, the article is about Christian evangelist scandals, but such case-by-case information belongs in the context of the perpetrators' respective biographies. It is inappropriate for the article to present case-by-case information about a group of otherwise unrelated individual Christian evangelist scandals as an acceptable substitute for an objective, well-rounded encyclopedia article. Simply listing scandals without providing any context regarding the subject is indeed a synthesis of information. However, because the subject is notable and has ample grounds for expansion, it should be kept, although it is imperative that the information causing the problem be removed, and simplified to the opening text, and the list be shortened to nothing more than a list of names. I may do this myself. Calgary 03:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This I have done. Calgary 03:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

* Looks like it got reverted, possibly becuase itg was a bit too much like a blanking. It seems like a pretty good direction to take the article in though. Artw 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus can be reached, indeed. What nonsense! Is this going to happen everytime it's "default to keep" because no consensus has been reached? I can't "assume good faith" considering that 22 people voted the first time around, when was it, last week? This isn't good faith, this is being a sore loser. If things don't go my way on a keep or delete, you know what I do? I live with it, and so do the rest of us. Grow up. Mandsford 03:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- This comment misunderstands what happens. I'd have to look at the history to see who acted for certain, but someone reviewed the discussion, determined that the group hadn't reached a consensus decision, and that there was a chance that further discussion might get us there. So they extended the discussion. These relistings are hardly unusual; we do about a handful a day. The comment assumed instead that a new discussion had started. GRBerry 04:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep The rework article eliminates the NPOV issues, although it may need some clean-up to improve notability. --bfigura ^(talk) 05:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, rename and cleanup per the discussion. Reinis^talk 08:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean-up to improve notability. The version I saw had no NPOV problems, although it lacked synthesis information and sources such as the ones dug up by FrozenPurpleCube to establish notability. The existence of those synthesis sources indicate that this article subject has good potential.--Yannick 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as we already have articles on the individuals involved and nothing more than the subjects' faith really links these particular scandals (or at least the author has not shown a deeper link). Biruitorul 19:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep but modify The basic idea is sound, because there is great pop cultural interest. However, articles already exist on these people. Therefore I recommend to convert this to a list of names and any info move to the main articles.QueenAdelaide 06:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
comment I continue to think this is a POV and BLP nightmare. The individual accusations in the articles are not all specifically sourced, the inclusion of these people is an indication of cultural and religious bias, & whether or not I share this bias is irrelevant. How about Christian non-evangelist ministers who have been involved in scandals, or non-Christian evangelist scandals, or separate group articles for Republicans/Decocrats caught in political scandals, as a group. What is really meant by this is notable hypocrites, with the implication that Evangelical Christian ministers are likely to be hypocrites to the degree that it is worth making an article out of the fact. Presumably there are people to be found who think the same of Presbyterians (or Episcopalians) , or Orthodox (or Liberal) Jews, or Sunni (or Shite) Muslims. Would we accept such articles? Each individual article--that's another matter. Who predominates?--people can decide that for themselves. DGG (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - unless there is similar material elsewhere, but (as I suggested above), the title should be renamed to televangelists. Peterkingiron 16:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - As I pointed out above there is already a Televangelism article. TerriersFan 16:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep per QueenAdelaide. The concept is sound but it is a bit POV. This can be dealt with editorially. Dbromage [Talk] 23:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. --Tjss (Talk) 00:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thorough enough for ya? Mandsford 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Gosh, you're keen. Artw 05:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete poorly written, OR, POV garbage--Sefringle^Talk 04:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Keep Just because something is controversial, there is no reason not to include it on Wikipedia. I personally very much favor such lists so that this type of phenomenon can be tracked and studied. It is definitely in keeping with an encyclopedia. It is raw data and a useful directory, nothing more.--Filll 19:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep The subject is an important social topic, discussed much in the media and popular culture, as a phenomenon independant to an extent from the individuals responsible. ornis (t) 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Filll and Ornis. •Jim62sch• 10:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, rename and clearup to List of controversial televangelists (United States). Two reasons: (1) The main article on televangelists has a far, far, better section on scandals, which explores the reasons behind the phenomenon. This is a list, not an article, and I support Calgary's revision and reasoning. (2) This article is exclusively about the US, whereas Televangelism covers other territories as well. Seektruthfromfacts 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Points, votes, comments

There have been a number of points made, and I'd like to see them represented here, so people can list their names by the point which best represents them. So, a condensed list of basic points (in bold) is in order, followed by a single or two-line vote and comment. The main comment appears to indicate a problem with the title, that it is "singling out a particular religious group." If this is really a valid concern (and Im not so sure it is), reasonable comments seems to suggest that a simple rename would be sufficient to make this more generally applicable.

Note: I think some people might be confusing Evangelicals (a generally American strain of Protestantism complete with Restorationist claims and nationalist leanings) with evangelism itself, which is simply a more general term for "preaching [the good news]." So "evangelists" is simply a more formal way of saying "preachers." The problem with using "evangelists" is that it appears to indicate Protestantism, much like the term "clergy" would seem to exclude many non-hierarchical (Congregationalist) denominations (churches) and instead indicate Catholics and maybe Anglicans. "Religious officials" might work, but again, this would seem to indicate only churches who have an official structure, and might not include even the more famous scandals involving non-structured American Protestants, whatever they might call themselves. Furthermore, Evangelicals are quite prominent in the televangelist scene (again another context), take their name from the concept of evangelism, and some of these have been quite the pioneers in scandal - be it sex, money, or "wall to wall mink" carpet (Google it), with the general sense being that new inventions breed new sins -- "embracing the airwaves" (and a populist style of ministry) has a noted downside.

Anyway, there are some basic points beyond "keep" or "delete", and these appear to the be in order for this particular case. -Ste vertigo 06:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There are other confusions, which is part of why Evangelical is a disambiguation page. "Evangelicals" are adherents, whether or not they are a preacher, to a theological position within Christianity, described at Evangelicalism. "Evangelists" are either a preacher of any Christian religion or a particular type of preacher whose primary role is seeking converts in large group settings, see wiktionary:evangelist for a partial explanation. In the second sense other roles include apologist, missionary, or theologian. The article conflates the two meanings, with the apparent (though unsettled and unstated) inclusion criteria of any preacher who is an evangelical that has been involved in a scandal. So I'd say keeping at this title is clearly incorrect; the title isn't the topic of the article.

As always, I believe the issue is whether there are secondary sources on the topic of an article. So which is a topic with better sourcing - "televangelist scandals" or "evangelical preacher scandals"? My gut feeling is that the former is more likely to have sources that are comprehensive, but both probably have some secondary sources that discuss more than one such scandal. This needs a WP:HEY effort, focused on sourcing, if it is not to merit deletion. If anybody comes up with decent sourcing for either topic, move rename and edit appropriately, otherwise delete. GRBerry 13:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I had'nt seen WP:HEY before. I think I like it, though Im skeptical of the meta-notability - I can probably think of a hundred other AFD/VFD's over the years which were corrected during the course of an AFD rescue. It's a sad paradox - we creationists don't want to be at the mercy of deletionists, but its too often that an AFD threat works to spark constructive repair. One wonders if deletionists are better described as "angel extortionists," (cf. angel investors) threatening the wiki into growth and prosperity.

In any case, now that we seem to mostly agree on a name change (and consequently, a context change), I'd like to see a list of proposed names. Now if not sooner. -Ste vertigo 03:39, 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. — TKD::Talk 05:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Itswar

Non-notable web game; also reads like promotional material or a primer. — Coren ^(talk) 02:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete CSD G12. Copied from http://www.itswar.net/guide/index.php and its sections. WODUP 03:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- The copyvio was added after the article was created, so I reverted it. Still, delete because it does not meet any of the notability requirements at WP:WEB. WODUP 03:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete not a notable game. Oyster guitarist 03:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete CSD G11. No reliable secondary sources available to establish notablity.--Yannick 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Needs to be completely rewritten. Singu larity 06:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SquareTrade

I added a deletion proposal, COI2, and advert categories. This is the user's only contrib, it reads like a press release, and cites no sources. Yes squaretrade does stuff on ebay, but so do many companies. Crimson117 01:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the above, or massive rewrite if notability can be established. Zelse81 01:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep A quick google search shows up a remarkable 8 million hits for this company. Notability is also established here as well. This webpage also deals with the subject matter as well. There are also a couple of reviews for this company as well on the net. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you remove the duplicates it knocks it down to 444[37] CitiCat ^♫ 02:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete CSD G11. It might be notable, but the existing marketing spam is completely unacceptable.--Yannick 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete It reads like an ad to me. --Stormbay 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete although it might be notable it reads like an advertisment. Oyster guitarist 19:55, 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. Singu larity 05:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political choice

In spite of a plausible sounding name, this page appears to be original research. The sole 'source' given is not a reliable source (the link does not work, I assume it is meant to be to 'consumerism' rather than 'consumerium'. It has been PRODded, but the PROD has been removed by the author. Anarchia 01:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Original research and essay. --H irohisat ^Talk 01:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, unrepairable original research. No amount of editing would make this an article suitable for the encyclopaedia - the topic just does not exist outside of this article. Banno 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm going to have to say this is original research, based on the lack of citations as compared to the detail of the article. In addition, the style of writing, and the fact that the article defines the term in detail but does absolutely nothing to discuss the term itself, such as it's history or examples of it's usage lead me to believe it is an original innovation. Calgary 04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Seems not notable and original research. Maybe if the research gets published in an appropriate format, it could be an article eventually. Spacefarer 14:25, 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 Merge. There is a consensus that this content does not deserve a stand-alone article, but not a consensus to delete the content outright. This is the logical compromise, with substantial outright support below to bolster it. Xoloz 16:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bridge School Collection, Vol. 1

Not notable and blatant advertising. Ward3001 01:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep - the Bridge School is a school for handicapped children, co-founded by Neil Young. The annual Bridge School Benefits have featured live performances by many famous rock musicians. Whilst this collection needs more detail, it is clearly associated with these. "Blatant advertising" - on that basis, all articles about music albums on wikipedia are blatant advertising ! -- Beardo 03:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Bridge School Benefit unless evidence to show notability of the albums through reliable sources is provided. Google provides 59 unique hits, none of which is independent or reliable. Nuttah68 07:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge per NuttahBalloonman 04:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The Bridge School benefits are quite notable in the rock world, no reason why resultant albums shouldn't be treated like any other albums. Wasted Time R 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Vegaswikian 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless somebody clearly establishes notability (which should be done at the time of creation). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:11, 16 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 ^♫ 01:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Bridge School Benefits per Nuttah68. -- saberwyn 05:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This collection does not have notability. They must stand on their own and they don't appear to do so. --Stormbay 23:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Nuttah68; there is nothing to show that this particular album collection is notable, although the songs themselves may be. However, notability is not inherited. EyeSerene^TALK 08:57, 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. Singu larity 04:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tonya Reiman

Subject is a minor psychologist and hypnotist, and editors have not provided any evidence of notability. The only notable actions for which a source has been provided are a few appearances on The O'Reilly Factor. If every person to ever appear on television had a page, Wikipedia would be little more than a social networking site. --Tjss (Talk) 00:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Since all her appearances are on the same show it's hard to say how it reinforces her notability. --Dhartung | Talk 01:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete As the moninator points out, the article gives no reason to believe she is notable apart fronm her TV appearances - and appearing in a TV show does not, on its own make you notable. The link to her page borders on advertising. Anarchia 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per everyone else as failing WP:BIO.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above.--Yannick 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete a few apperances on a television show does not make you notable. Oyster guitarist 19:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep if Noted Better It should be expanded and sourced where she has had recognition and appearances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arnabdas (talk • contribs) 20:36, August 22, 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 — Caknuck 20:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BattleKnight

Browser game that fails WP:WEB. No sources are given to assert notability or reference the article in general. Tagged by me a month ago as not asserting its notability. Request on the talk page to improve it has not resulted in any improvements. Only sources given are references to the company web site and the game and references to online reviews which do not count as secondary reliable sources. MartinDK 16:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep This game appears to be a notable inter-country phenomenon in Europe with very little presence in the U.S. 648,000 GHits, most seem relevant. - Richfife 21:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Most? You mean to tell me that you looked through 648.000 GHits? MartinDK 13:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ - google results show not just homepages for versions in at least 14 European countries (Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK), but also China, Korea, and Taiwan. No results in Factiva, Proquest, Infotrac, Newztext, however these are primarily English-language databases. If a game has versions across 17+ different countries, there's surely something going on more than meets the eye. --Zeborah 11:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The appropriate guideline here is WP:WEB. Yes you get a lot GHits because each country gets its own bulletin board. There are NO secondary reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage. You cannot argue your way around that. Gladiatus was deleted for the very same reason. If there are secondary reliable sopurces then where are they? Show the sources and I'll withdraw the nom. Until then policy and notability guidelines should be enforced. MartinDK 13:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  - Yeah, on further consideration you're right - I'm thinking of this now from the point of view of writing the article, that without the sources there's no way of writing an article that isn't original research. Keep vote withdrawn. --Zeborah 22:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No reliable secondary sources. Just because they've done a good job of advertising doesn't make them notable.--Yannick 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Despite strong presence across country lines, until it gets some credible third-party coverage (and there isn't really any that I can see), it doesn't merit an article here on en.Wikipedia. Fails WP:WEB. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 12:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, non admin closure as nominator has withdrawn and unaminous keep. Davewild 08:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint John Transit

~~Non-notable bus company - fails to assert notability of any kind. _TheIslander 00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)~~

Weak keep and clean up - it's notability has improved a little since I nominated this (though it still reads like an advert), and it's clear now that nominating this wasn't the right thing to do. I therefore retract my nomination, and I would close this, but I'm afraid I don't know how. Appologies for any trouble caused. _TheIslander 18:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep and clean up. It's a public transit agency, carries with it some notability on precedent. Plenty of agencies that do this. Yes, I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup - Reads as spam, but notable enough. --H irohisat ^Talk 01:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean up it is notable enough, but reads like spam. Oyster guitarist 03:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep It's notability is obvious and stated in the 2nd two sentences. bobanny 17:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean upMy opinion has changed since yesterday. This article should be kept, as it does assert notability now. Need a little clean-up though. - Rjd0060 23:23, 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 merge to Wordpress. Sandstein 12:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B2\cafelog

I question the notability of this. Its only claim seems to be the fact that it's the precursor to WordPress and b2evolution. KTC 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 04:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Wordpress, and set up a redirect so people searching for b2 end up there. Ubernostrum 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge per user:Ubernostrum because there is not much coverage to be found of this Corpx 07:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge. I agree; I think it could be mentioned in the Wordpress article but it does not exactly deserve its own. Ben Webber 05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge as per Corpx. Harlowraman 17:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge per the above. It could fit well under Wordpress, but it's nowhere near notable enough in and of itself to have an article. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge, definitely cannot stand on its own. Merits a sentence or two in Wordpress. —ptk✰fgs 22:52, 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 Has already been redirected. Wizardman 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nysphsaa section one wrestling

NYSPHSAA covers all high school sports, not just wrestling. In addition, there are 11 geographical sections. This article should be replaced with an article on the NYSPHSAA itself, including the geographical boundaries of the 11 sections, AND/OR add an article for each section describing the high schools in the section as has been done in this article. Tckma 20:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 22:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Keep new article New York State Public High School Athletic Association. Most state associations have such an article as can be seen at National Federation of State High School Associations. This is yet another instance where the necessary action could have been taken by any editor rather than coming here. TerriersFan 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Merge - per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 03:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 03:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this has now been merged into an article on the parent association as I suggested. Since most of the other National Federation of State High School Associations have articles it would be irrational to blow another hole in the structure by deleting this one. The parent article has been tagged for improvement which is the way to go. TerriersFan 04:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, we don't need articles on every state-level subsection of regulatory bodies. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - sorry, but this is not a state-level subsection - it is a state-wide regulatory body. TerriersFan 01:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep It's been merged into parent, which appears to have plenty o' potential for a fine encyclopedia article. bobanny 17:45, 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 — Caknuck 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interracial friendships

Delete essentially an essay with original research. Jersey Devil 00:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: What part of this article are you claiming is original research? So far as I can see each claim made in the article is cited. Fixer1234 02:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Yeah, WP:NOR and WP:SYN do not seem to be problems.Brusegadi 02:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - This won't be on a encyclopedia, would it. Nothing is important to be an article. It's normal after all. --H irohisat ^Talk 01:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete the article is mostly original research. Oyster guitarist 03:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. There are reliable sources backing up some of the claims but it does smack of original research, unless the other claims can be cited. Thin Arthur 07:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete per Thin Arthur. Seems like it could be a content fork/POV-pushing thing though.-h i :s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete U.S.-centric essay. RegRCN 19:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC):*Comment: Which would be an issue for the normal editing process, not an AfD. Fixer1234 02:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article is an essay. Calgary 21:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: How so? This article is immature and requires some attention (editing and expansion), but I fail to see how it is an essay. So far as I can see about 90% of this article recounts facts from published sources (both mainstream and academic). The article contains no person antedotes. I can see nothing here that amounts to a "thesis"--a fact unproved by a single source that an essay (if the article were one) would aim to prove by synthesis. Fixer1234 02:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - JSTOR says that there is only one article citing the first source under references. The second reference is less scholarly in nature. The third source is the abstract of Dr. Tyson's thesis. There are only three references as of now. Of the two current external links, the second is to a grad's students page and the first is to some organization. Is this notable enough to merit its own article?Brusegadi 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree the current set of references is a bit lacking. I'm currently collecting more, and I plan to post tommarow. Until then, check out comments on the talk page for this article left by user LizPage-Gould which lists more research that has been done on this topic. Fixer1234 06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The following are scholarly article which discuss "interracial friendships", the role of race in social interaction with-in peer groups, or as one article puts it the "ethnocultural composition of the peer networks of acculturated (i.e., multigeneration North American) and ethnoculturally-affiliated (i.e., immigrant/first generation) adolescents living within a multicultural context."

Polarized Socialization in an Urban High School [38]

Peer Interactions and Friendships in an Ethnically Diverse School Setting [39]

Table Hopping in the Cafeteria: An Exploration of "Racial" Integration in Early Adolescent Social Groups [40]

Cross-Group Contact Opportunities: Impact on Interpersonal Relationships in Desegregated Middle Schools [41]

Diversity and the Influence of Friendship Groups in College [42]

Peer Network Composition of Acculturated and Ethnoculturally-Affillated Adolescents in a Multicultural Setting [43]

An article from the Harvard Gazette reads: "In his research, John Stauffer focuses on the difficulties of interracial friendships in American history and literature." You can read an article by him about “Interracial Friendships in The Deerslayer’ by James Fenimore Cooper here.

There are more academic aricles to be found here, if you care to sort through them.

Furthermore there is this book: Some of My Best Friends: Writings on Interracial Friendships in which “Emily Bernard examines the complexities of interracial friendships -- white and black, Latino and white, black and Asian, black and Jewish -- in this poignant book…” (See this book on Google Books)

Let there be no doubt--these articles reinforce the notability of this topic. While it may indeed be better to use the wider term "intergroup friendships" (as some on the talk page suggests), it is clear that there has been much discussion of the nature/role race and ethnicity play in social interaction ("friendship")with-in peer groups. Fixer1234 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - what an inane article; if people are around people of other races they will have more racial friends? Please tell me we don't need to statement such an obvious statement. I don't think I have ever read anything so lacking in value. If anything it is a definition that is summed up by the title of the article. There really is not much to say afterwards. There was one ray of light/iterest/value in the study quantifying races that are not as open to interracial relationships; however, that is best handled on the respective articles. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:12, 23 August 2007

(UTC)

Rebuttal:The article, I agree, is not very deep/comprehensive right now. Much of what is there is “obvious”. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the topic is notable enough for the article to grow into a quality source of information. I believe the links I’ve posted clearly demonstrate that this topic is notable and has been seriously studied. You may not have a person interest in the topic. That is your business. (In fact, I’m not really all that interested in the topic. I simply recognize its notability and figure that somebody ought to defend this article.) You write that “there really is not much to say” after the title of this article. Again, the links I’ve posted demonstrate that many highly-trained professionals would disagree. If anyone here really needs to see more links/data to be convinced of this topic's notability, I’ve just found this topic summary and bibliography prepared by two professors from Berkeley. Fixer1234 20:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep: As I post this, I am one of two keep votes on the page. However, I ask the admin who decides the outcome of this AfD to consider the justification offered by those voting “delete”. Most of the users argued that the article violated WP:NOR. Pointing out the citations in the article, I questioned what the reasoning behind their judgment. Not one voter offer arguments to justify his/her vote. Another delete vote reads, “The article is an essay.” First of all, I would like to point out that all articles on Wikipedia are essays—they are merely expository or informative rather than persuasive or argumentative. I assume this editor (Calgary) was arguing that the article violated WP:SYN. But, as I argued above, there is nothing in the article that amounts to a "thesis"--a new concept or fact unproved by a single source that the article attempts to argue for using a synthesis of published sources. Further, the links I posted above show that Interracial friendships is an established term/idea—it is not a neologism. Brusegadi agreed with me that “WP:NOR and WP:SYN…” did “…not seem to be problems.”

Another delete voter writes (and paraphrase) “This wouldn’t be in an encyclopedia would it? There is nothing here important enough to justify an article. It's normal after all.” I certainly agree that interracial relationships (friendship, marriage, etc) are perfectly normal—but that is not the issue. In fact, one point of interest for people who write on this topic seems to be the “difficulties of interracial friendships” that arise out of issues/situations that result from historically negative attitudes towards miscegenation in places like the Southern United States and South Africa. Other writers seem to be less concerned with such issues, and they approach the material with an interest in the multicultural aspects of intergroup friends. The point—what is at issue—is that there are a number of qualities that seem to make intergroup friendships unique.
The only other delete vote on the page (that does not fall into one of the categories I’ve already discussed) simply reads “U.S.-centric essay”. That, of course, is an issue for the normal editing process.
We who have voted for keep have a long list of sources to back up our claim that this is a notable and established topic. The current article is brief, but what is there is well cited. The sentence that was marked “citation need” was, in fact, supported by the second reference. (The USA Today article in question is reprinted here.) I do not disagree that the article needs some work, but I firmly believe it should not be deleted. Fixer1234 19:45, 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. Singu larity 04:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poars

Google search only turns up 2 YouTube videos on this, as well as the Wikipedia article. In fact, Google asks me "Did you mean 'Pours'?" No other source available. Panoptical 18:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, I am Brazilian and never hear of this series, there is a community in orkut with only 204 members, anyway delete per lack of notability. Carlosguitar 01:09, 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, Kurykh 00:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I think if we have a Brazilian saying he hasn't heard of it, given this is based in Brazil, we can nuke it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Bad reasoning. There are lots of notable things going on in the USA that most Americans have never heard of, same for any other country.--Yannick 16:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete after having a google search with few results it is clearly notable. Oyster guitarist 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean, not notable? Brusegadi 02:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete - I ventured and did a google search for POARS with results restricted to pages in Portuguese. The first hit is their webpage which is basically a redirect to a profile in youtube. I looked into two of their youtube videos and they only have like 5 comments. Their first episode has less than 14,000 views. Notability is beyond hope.Brusegadi 02:41, 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. Punkmorten 06:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the swing

Google pulls up nothing on this song. Trival and unfeferenced hand in hand equal deletion. Panoptical 18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable music. I've heard other songs do that same note pattern, it's nothing unusual. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable, the article it self doesn't show it's importance. --H irohisat ^Talk 01:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of notability. Anarchia 01:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete doesn't show notability. Oyster guitarist 03:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete with no prejudice against recreation of a properly sourced article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per above. Helping to build consensus. Brusegadi 02:26, 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. Punkmorten 06:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cristalix

Fails WP:BAND. Has only 1 released EP that did not hit the charts. Also, the main source is the band's myspace page. Panoptical 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete 430 Yahoo hits--and not a reliable source among them. Blueboy 96 21:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Non-Notable --H irohisat ^Talk 01:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nothing notable. i ^said 02:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable band and unreliable sources. Oyster guitarist 03:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Hmmm, Using wikipedia to get laid? "I am in a band, we have a wiki page!" ;) Brusegadi 02:25, 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. Singu larity 02:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of personal names that contain numbers

The article is a big mish-mash of people who actually have numbers in their names, people who have names that resemble numbers, and fictional characters with numbers in their names. Also, take note that of the names that actually include numbers, many are stage names. In addition, many of the actual legal names that include numbers follow naming conventions in which number-based names are common. Even the fictional characters’ names split up into actual names that are numbers, names that are based on/resemble numbers, and aliases/serial numbers. In short, the list combines at least five (possibly eight, if you want to get technical) separate categories into a single page. This does absolutely nothing to organize the information, as there is no consistency or continuity, and combines so many smaller yet distinctly different topics that it is very confusing, and muddles up navigation rather than enhancing it.

The smaller categories enough probably do not meet the criteria to have their own lists, but combining them into one all-inclusive list is even worse. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to have an article about numbers in personal names as it relates to naming conventions and the like, but that is material for a standard article, not a list. Calgary 00:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as listcruft and WP:NOT#INFO an indiscriminate collection of information.--Jersey Devil 00:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - WP:NOT#INFO --H irohisat ^Talk 01:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - What a bizarre list. Pointless too, sadly. ICHOR}mosquito{ 01:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - pointless, as the above states. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete no need to have it. Oyster guitarist 03:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete More fun to write than it was to read. There actually are people who have sought to legally change their names to something with a number in it, but this list makes the common "pop culture" mistake of trying to include everything-- Benedict XVI, KRS-One, people named Septimus, etc. Sorry, I vote to "deep six" this one, 23 Skidoo. Mandsford 03:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - While culturally interesting in some ways, it can never hope to be a complete and useful list. - Tangotango (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Trivial list/loosely associated items Corpx 07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete NHRHS2010 ^Talk 20:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It does have pop cultural value. Some poor guy has put a lot of work into it. It does no harm...leave it for people who like to kinky with numbers. QueenAdelaide 06:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any pop culture value. The list isarbitrary, all-inclusive and disorganized to the extent that even if someone interested in popular culture were to visit the article, I doubt thay'd be able to find much. Calgary 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete This does not have value as pop culture or as anything else, being about as meaningless as an article can get. Names beginning with A... is the classic example of a truly indiscriminate list, and this comes very close to it. Possibly the general section, is done in a more sophisticated way, is worth preserving in other articles--but not as a list. The real pop culture articles with value show that value much more clearly in comparison with this. In a way, it's good that someone went to the trouble of doing a bad example. DGG (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This article, while potentially interesting, is just a collection of information. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 12:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete listcruft and not necessary encyclopedic here--JForget 00:11, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Briefing

This magazine seems to be of parochial interest but is not notable and does not assert any notability. Moreover, a quick search of the references and possible online references reveals no significant coverage of this media source independent of the subject itself. Therefore, I do not believe this article can ever rise to becoming notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nondistinguished 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

KeepWeak Delete - When articles on goods or services in wikipedia do not assert notability I think its best they be deleted. If some third party sources are found I would change my view to keep.Brusegadi 04:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Per below comments about popularity in Australia. Brusegadi 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - The Briefing has been around for over 10 years and is published in Australia, England and America. Like any other niche publication it is not well known in the mainstream press but it is well known among Christians in Australia and is growing in profile in England and America. It is also notable for the fact of it being a good expression of 'Sydney Anglicanism,' a disproportionately influential evangelical group of Christians. All that aside I doubt the neutrality of nondistinguished, (Who nominated this article for deletion.) because if they were really serious about pursuing this topic they would included reputable circulation sources instead of a vague reference to a quick search of google.Knobbly 04:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You assert a notability among certain groups but provide no evidence for your assertion. I have no doubt that this publication expresses a particular viewpoint and that it has subscribers and people who are aware of it. However, I question whether it is rises to the level of notability as outlined by the consensus of Wikipedians. You also should be careful in your insinuations of bias. Everybody has a bias, as pointed out in our neutrality guidelines. You have a bias, I have a bias, we all have biases. However, that doesn't mean it is impossible for us to put aside those biases and discuss whether or not a subject is notable or not. If you have circulation data, please offer them for us to consider. But don't just attack my good faith nomination please. Nondistinguished 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough I don't have any figures, yet. But just importantly, neither do you! Your making a deletion request based on what? A link to notability?? More realistically you should outline clearly what each of your reasons are for deletion. Like: Circulation below 10,000, Not enough Google hits, Not mentioned in the Australian Newspapers, etc. This would make it easier to prove or disprove and would be less susceptible to bias or agenda. I also wonder how you exactly measure notability. Are you going to go after Eureka Street next or the Central Western Daily?Knobbly 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think my explanation is clear enough as to why I don't think the subject is notable. Namely, there does not seem to be any third-party coverage of this magazine. If you believe differently, you are free in this discussion to list your reasons. It is my stated belief that WP:N gives fairly clear criteria and that this particular article does not rise to the standards outlined there. What's more, we are debating this article only. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for these deletion debates. Nondistinguished 11:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITSis not a good measure for proving how un-notable something is.Knobbly 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I see no good reason to delete this article. Currently it is small, but it has the potential to be expanded and improved. The Briefing has a wide readership in at least 2 countries. I have come across many other articles on topics which are far less notable, in my view, yet they have not been put up for deletion. Tonicthebrown 11:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence here is perilously close to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale for keeping this article. Let's try to avoid that kind of argument, please. Nondistinguished 11:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The article does not show that the magazine is the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other. There are no third-party sources at all. By its nature, if a magazine is influential, you would expect that it would be commented on in the press. EdJohnston 05:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- It has been commented on by the Sydney Morning Herald, though I would have to dig through their archives. Is that notable enough for you? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Tonicthebrown, couldnt have put it better myself --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 03:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete looks to me that it might not have any sort of notability outside its target audience, showing in the lack of coverage from RS Corpx 07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Odd nomination to say the least, perhaps reflecting the lack of sources in the article mentioned by EdJohnston rather than the notability of the subject. This is clearly a well known and substantially quoted magazine, if hard to google as the word "briefing" is not that unusual, but I quite quickly found examples of non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other. Here are three (which I will also add into the article):

1) Cross Rhythms has a substantial discussion about the magazine’s critique of a Hillsong Church event[[44]].

2) Ronald McCaulay’s paper ‘The Great Commissions’ (Cambridge Papers, Vol 7 No 2, June 1998) [[45]] criticises an article in the magazine, clearly treating it as a significant and notable publication whose views (though in this case unhelpful) had to be considered.

3) The campaign group ‘The Micah Challenge’ recommend it as a “gatekeeper for new ideas and approaches”[[46]].

Regards to all fellow Wikipedians. Springnuts 07:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort Springnuts, but in all of these references the coverage of the magazine is trivial. Can you identify a reliable secondary source which discusses The Briefing instead of just mentioning it or citing it?--Yannick 17:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake! You wanted to know if it was notable. These references show notability, because the articles are about what the magazine has said. They most definitely demonstrate notability. I should also note that the Cambridge Papers is a reliable source. Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, these sources show that The Briefing carries articles about notable subjects, not that the magazine itself is notable. I am not disputing the reliability or independence of Springnuts's sources; I am pointing out that they do not include substantial coverage of the magazine in question. For example, if we were trying to establish the notability of Maclean's magazine, I would be looking for a source like this one which reports on a new editor-in-chief, or maybe this paper which discusses Maclean's role in Canadian culture. Pulling out a bunch of citations to Maclean's magazine would be insufficient evidence of notability.--Yannick 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep evidently, the one doing the listing doesn't realise the tremendous influence this magazine has over Sydney Anglicans, nor do they understand that it is one of the strongest voices of Mathias Media. This magazine is very notable within this circle, and is very controversial outside of this circle. Strongly advise that this article be kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - per the above who have resolved to keep, plus as someone from Sydney, I know that the view of the Sydney Anglican Diocese is often well-espoused and mentioned by outside media often by referring to the Briefing and its authors and associates - frequently the opinions of persons such as Phillip Jensen (which are controversial according to many outside the diocese, both Christian and non-Christian) have been discussed through the magazine. JRG 08:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Due to the nominator's entirely flawed reasoning. He says "a quick search of the references and possible online references reveals no significant coverage of this media source independent of the subject itself. Therefore, I do not believe this article can ever rise to becoming notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia". So a 'quick' google by one person means that this article could NEVER be notable because sources could never be found? The absurdity of that statement has already been demonstrated with other sources being discovered and given here. Nick mallory 08:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Article lacks reliable secondary sources about the magazine. Nobody's saying that we will never find these sources, or that they will never be written, but you'll have to point them out to us naysayers in order to establish notability to our satisfaction.--Yannick 16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out to everyone that this is not a valid deletion reason. We have never deleted due to article quality. If the article is poor, send it to cleanup. We only delete in situations where there is no way of validating or referencing information, or in cases where the article is deliberately POV or unnotable. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - I think you are wrong, Yannick on a number of counts. You make two points: one in your edit (lacks reliable secondary sources) and another in your edit summary, but not in your edit, (Not true. Scroll up to see my edit, please.--Yannick 22:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)) that the sources found are trivial. OK:

Since I give sources you are presumably saying they are not secondary, and/or not reliable. I picked two of the three precisely as they are in various ways critical of the magazine. They are by people un-connected with the magazine and show that analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and evaluation that secondary sources will show. Their reliability is suggested by their being written by people unconnected with the magazine, and by their criticality.

But secondly, I should not need to make the arguments above. The original complaint was "no sources" - now that some have been found and added the 'burden of proof' has shifted. It is no good now just saying that the sources are trivial - you have to argue the point, not just assert. Engaging in a debate, rather than slinging bare assertions, is one way that we all demonstrate our good faith. So stand at the bar and shy at the coconuts - I've lined three up for you!

<Removed own unnecessary, grumpy and not very graceful comment>. Springnuts 17:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Springnuts, please engage in the debate by scrolling up the page and looking at my response to your sources. In that earlier edit, I explained that your sources provide trivial coverage of the magazine. I agree that they are independent and may be reliable, but they just mention The Briefing, rather than discuss it. This is evidence that the magazine exists, and that some of its articles may have been notable, but this is not evidence of the magazine's notability.--Yannick 22:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. An article that lacks sufficient sources needs to be sourced, not deleted. This and this appear to be independent, albeit Christian, sources that reference The Briefing and suggest notability. bobanny 18:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

These are indeed independent sources that cite articles from The Briefing, but they say very little about the magazine itself. This indicates that The Briefing publishes articles about notable topics, but does not establish the notability of the magazine itself. --Yannick 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep per bobanny RegRCN 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep if you know anything about the Anglican church in Australia then you'd understand the reason this magazine is notable. The Briefing is regularly mentioned (perhaps unfairly) as the journal of the Anglican Church League in discussions of religion in Sydney and Australia. The magazine is also notable because of its association with the Jensen's and leaders within the evangelical movement in Australia. Journeyman 07:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment A magazine is not notable because a few scattered sources refer to a few articles in it, and all the citations given seem to be of that sort. If Journeyman can show that this is regularly considered the voice of a notable religious group, then the magazine is notable.DGG (talk) 07:32, 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 deleted due to lack of notability assertion and general spamminess. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kentaro Noda

Musician appears to be non-notable; there is no assertion of notability in the article. The Japanese Wikipedia article states that "As a pianist, [Kentaro Noda] often holds non-notable performances and performances for new songs". This may also be part of a widespread vandalism/trolling attempt that has afflicted jawiki, metawiki, and enwiki (ja:WP:NODA has details in Japanese). Tangotango (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The article claims that he is not notable; let's go with that. Springnuts 06:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete So he's a 'would-be' composer, a long term vandal and banned from the Japanese Wikipedia, and in the category of Japanese comedian?! Hmmm! Anyway, appears not to meet en.wikipedia criteria for notability. --Malcolmxl5 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete i don't think 'would-be' composers meet notability requirements. Oyster guitarist 19:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Non notable nonsense. Brusegadi 02:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete hello! Are you sockpuppets of Naoko Kizu ? HaHaHa ! My name is REAL Kentaro Noda. please visit my HP and listen to new work in Amsterdam.[47]--Noda,Kentaro 14:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
comments my photo [48] and award [49] --Noda,Kentaro 14:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
comments my another bio [50] --Noda,Kentaro 14:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make unfounded speculations, Kentaro,Noda, regarding the identity of participants in this discussion debate. Can I also please ask you to provide links for the page on ereprijs.nl (server not reachable) and the PDF on avantgarde-tirol.at (returns 404 not found) that actually work? Thanks, Tangotango (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
comments [51] and [52]. User:Tangotango is trouble maker !! hahahaha !!--Noda,Kentaro 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as attack page that violates WP:BLP. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harold, Kumar and Alok go to Appu Ghar

The article contains no sources and is probably a hoax. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Seems like it also meets WP:ATP against Alok Nath, based on the unsourced statement alok is a convicted rapist and the effigy picture. Nate 09:45, 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. DS 15:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomasians

Thomasians has been deleted as a fake on the German wikipedia today. Everybody (about 10 users) agreed on that. The sources are dubious, the Thomasians, their founder and many other subjects in the text are simply untraceable, not only with a normal web search, but even with a Google scholar and book search. This article is an English translation of the German original. The German version is the only article the author contributed to, he never did anything else than writing this and linking other articles to it (these have been cleaned up as well today in the German WP). Orangenpuppe 19:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:HOAX. Thank you for the tipoff on this. I see the article claims that "Most of the information presented in this article is derived from conversations with a German Thomasian." In that case, it would surely constitute original research, even if it wasn't a hoax. --Malcolmxl5 00:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I did a search on German sources, but every mention was a Wiki mirror. The only mentions of "Thomasianer" were of Thomists. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Per Orangenpuppe. Brusegadi 02:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Carli Banks

[edit] Dayne Walling

[edit] US 1st Parachute Battalion (fictional unit)

[edit] David Zwirner

[edit] Mr jackrabbit and mr raven show

[edit] Camelot (drinking game)

[edit] US Channels DirecTV Needs

[edit] Islamic Emirate of Albania

[edit] London Buses route 1

[edit] Khalid Latif

[edit] List of Portuguese Americans

[edit] James Bilton (Big Cheese)

[edit] Simon Mol

[edit] CMS Made Simple

[edit] Weapons Used on 24 (TV)

[edit] Assamese Wikipedia

[edit] The Felons

[edit] Winflash

[edit] Hina Chavda

[edit] Ben Schaefer, Dan Pinzon

[edit] College Linux

[edit] Alpin Hong

[edit] Jumping the shark

[edit] Borggaard Beach At Wedge Pond

[edit] Roor

[edit] Lucille Nixon

[edit] Elad Peled

[edit] Dirty Den and Angie

[edit] Get Johnny Week

[edit] Sharongate

[edit] The Firm (EastEnders)

[edit] Shannis

[edit] The Banned

[edit] Ty Wagner

[edit] List of Chappelle's Show skits

[edit] List of actors who gained or lost weight for a role

[edit] List of Premier League Broadcasters (2007-08)

[edit] Jessica Simpson Song

[edit] MODx (software)

[edit] ALC (Another Lost Cauze)

[edit] List of Supermodels

[edit] List of Colombians

[edit] List of British Asian people

[edit] Esther Baptiste

[edit] Pribor-3B Assault Rifle

[edit] Captain (Historical and Romantic)

[edit] "To be born with the gift of laughter, and the sense that the world was mad"

[edit] John Smeaton (baggage handler)

[edit] Antwan "Amadeus" Thompson

[edit] Tristan Tondino

[edit] Majin Xezeveir

[edit] Belarusian Wikipedias

[edit] Shonk

[edit] John Burgan

[edit] Elwood (American musician)

[edit] The Mike Sherman Show

[edit] Irralogical

[edit] John Pike (writer)

[edit] The Green Dragon

[edit] Bay of Andúnië

[edit] List of cult classics

[edit] WTHITB

[edit] Julia Earl

[edit] Eddie Solomon (statistician)

[edit] Tonite Reprise

[edit] Candy Shop (Madonna song)

[edit] Black Jacqueline

[edit] Joseph Bellinger

[edit] Stephen Hargreaves

[edit] As The Dust Settles, Revealing Those Seldom Seen

[edit] Secrets (band)

[edit] Cornelius Hansard

[edit] Increase

[edit] Sanos

[edit] Beacham Owen

[edit] Jesusland map

[edit] Love Stinks (Frasier episode)