Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 there is content here that is appropriate for merger, let me know and I can provide that content to be merged into MySpace. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myspace layouts

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

Not notable, no references Hornet35 02:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge into Myspace. Oli Filth 02:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Any relevant parts are covered in the main MySpace article. This article mainly exists as a spamhole. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Myspace. After the removal of how-to type material, there isn't anything much to be said that isn't better served being merged into the main article. -- Whpq 16:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything not already covered to MySpace. Italia^vivi 19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete.. CitiCat ^♫ 00:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Projet Conception

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

Unnotable, advertising Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 16:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Note Nominated article was not added to log. I'm therefore doing this on behalf of the nominator. Jakew 00:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7. No assertion of notability. Jakew 00:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malabushism

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

This article only sites a Google search for the term to justify the existence of the term. The google search mostly yields myspace and Youtube references. I therefore submit that the term is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. --However whatever 23:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:RS, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not verified, not notable. MarkinBoston 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Inventive, funny, appropriate but not suitable as a WP article. WebHamster 01:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not inventive, not funny, not appropriate and still not suitable as a WP article. Nick mallory 01:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:TenPoundHammer. --Hornet35 02:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We have Bushism, we don't need another article. There's nothing in the article worth saving, since it's already in the other article. WP:MADEUP. Horologium t-c 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is just a neologism used to promote a Myspace video. The singular form of the word "Malabushism" generates no Google hits other than Wikipedia and its mirrors. [1] --Metropolitan90 04:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Bushism is more than enough on this topic; this term is unsourced and notability is unverifiable. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nomination. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The term "Less is More" applies to a lot of things in life, but it shouldn't apply to a site that is trying to be at the forefront of providing all human knowledge. MalaBushism know shows up on many search engines as well as other Wiki sites. It is different from a regular Bushism and it is a very specific type of malapropism. It deserves a page of its own.
  It seems odd that this listing has been up for months, with no comments or Delete suggestions and now, in one day, nine different people post messages to delete it....? How does this work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmf4001 (talk • contribs) 20:57, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not true. The article was nominated for deletion once before, but Jmf4001 removed the template to delete. Keep in mind, though, that the age of the article has no bearing on whether it should be deleted. --However whatever 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Most likely most of the delete recommendations came because people saw the Articles for Deletion nomination on the daily log of AfDs. Listing the nomination on the AfD daily log is standard (in fact, mandatory) procedure for AfDs. Also, in my opinion, the Malabushism article does not make a clear distinction between "malabushisms" and ordinary Bushisms, most of which are malapropisms anyway. --Metropolitan90 04:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's not supported by reliable sources, and is in fact primarily an extended dictionary definition. -- Whpq 16:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional universes

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

Loose association, better served as a category. Every time an author writes fiction, they create a fictional universe. Eyrian 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as an organized list that is better than a category. FrozenPurpleCube 23:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Geez, I get tired of that "it's-better-as-a-category" argument. Categories are better than a list of blue links, but categories are, basically, "indiscriminate information" intended to serve as an index. Something that a list can do, that a category cannot, is to offer additional "discriminating" information. Even at that, there is no reason why a list can't co-exist with a category. It's not a choice of one or the other. Mandsford 00:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Many of the listings are not universes at all, so I have a problem with the concept. Maybe "Alternate Realities"? I usually don't like lists, but this one has its good points. MarkinBoston 01:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Fictional universe which may explain the apparent discrepancy. FrozenPurpleCube 02:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep article provides a level of organization unobtainable in a catagory. Edward321 02:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Incorrect. The only organizational feature not permitted by a category is ordering. These would be quite well serviced by subcategories. --Eyrian 02:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as an important organized list with research relevance. RandomCritic 02:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is more than an index. Most fiction is written about the present universe, assuming its history and laws. The ones here indicate the distinctiveness and the importance of the group and --since they are limited to those discussed in WP -- the importance of the individual ones. The additional feature provided by a list is contextual information, and most of these have it: "Cthulhu Mythos by H.P. Lovecraft and others" is much more useful and more informative than "Cthulhu Mythos" which is all that a category could hold. DGG (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the anti-list vendetta has gotten a bit overboard. This one is perfectly reasonable (if there's an issue regarding criteria, that can be settled at the article level). 23skidoo 04:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because I do not think an encyclopedia should be the index of everything mentioned in a fictional work. This is trivial information and loosely associated. Corpx 05:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This page isn't about everything mentioned in a fictional work, but rather of a different concept. FrozenPurpleCube 16:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this different from a list of any set of two or more mutually-consistent fictional works? Is there any reason that any series of books shouldn't be included? --Eyrian 18:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can't imagine why one would include a non-fiction work like the ...for Dummies series here. Or were you asking about fictional works? Because there are novels/stories that aren't in an established fictional universe. Just because something takes place in a work of fiction doesn't mean it is actually a fictional universe. FrozenPurpleCube 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's totally ridiculous. Yes, something that is fictional automatically takes place in a fictional universe. Since it's fiction, that means it's different from our universe. Which means it's in a different, fictional universe. And you didn't answer my actual question. list of any set of two or more mutually-consistent fictional works? Is there any such set that shouldn't be included? Why not? --Eyrian 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It takes place in a fictional setting, yes. That doesn't mean it is actually a universe. Sorry, but I guess you're not grasping the concept. Let me try another way. Shakespeare's plays are fiction. They are not, however, a fictional universe, since they each stand on their own and aren't in any other universe. There's no common theme connecting their settings. However, for say, Star Trek, the series do clearly take place in the same setting, which makes it a fictional universe. FrozenPurpleCube 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hence the term self-consistent. So, every trilogy/duology/tetrology... etc. ever should be on this list? --Eyrian 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps you should bring that up on the Talk Page. I could see arguments either way. FrozenPurpleCube 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This has the potential to turn into a list of all the non-fiction books ever published, as they're all set in their own universe. Corpx 07:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep helps navigation and makes Wikipedia easier to use, if the title didn't have the hated word "list" would it have drawn the attention of the nominator.KTo288 17:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because this is a list of works that share a notable, verifiable concept in fiction. Better as list than category per User:DGG and others above. Valid per WP:LIST for both information and navigation. Contrary to what one might believe in a trip to AFD WP:Delete all lists is neither policy nor guideline. --JayHenry 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This list is potentially quite valuable for a researcher on the topic. Fairsing 00:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per User:DGG and FrozenPurpleCube. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hemlock Martinis 21:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planets in science fiction

Planets in science fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

List of trivial, loosely associated topics, topped with plenty of original research. Eyrian 23:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep OR can be sourced or removed. List section is reasonably highly organized though. Probably should be split off. FrozenPurpleCube 23:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per Manticore. Well organized, but this is really three articles in one space. We have a rather long introductory essay that has a single source; then a list of blue-links to fictional universes (Good Lord, is there REALLY a "Category: Sonic the Hedgehog planets"? Oh, I'm getting nauseous. This is why I think categories are way overused); finally, a list of fictional planets drawn from various sources. Fix, but don't delete. Mandsford 00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is an amazingly outrageous AfD -- a classic example of abuse of the AfD process. The nominator has never been involved in this article; has nothing on the talk page; has not even made any statement that anything is wrong with this article; and has simply thrown up a deletion notice. Every general claim made is unsubstantiated, for the simple reason that it's false: this is not trivial; it is not loosely associated; nor is there "original research". Nominator hasn't provided a single substantive criticism in the proposal, which doesn't even meet the laugh test. Is it too much to suggest that nominator is making these deletion proposals in order to make a point -- namely, that he hates fiction-related articles? Is the repeated failure of his deletion proposals not sinking in? Nominator is wasting everybody's time with crap like this. What is the proper response to this kind of tying up of Wikipedia administrative processes with ridiculous proposals? RandomCritic 00:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I made this page just for you. --Eyrian 02:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube. Edward321 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is the way to deal with this. As for the long indiscriminate list that the above link boasts of deleting, I hope that by this time 6 months most of them will back in improved form. But this one is not exactly similar--it's much more general, meaningful and essential to the encyclopedia. The others , many of the them, are good, or at least could be good, but this is necessary. How planets are trivial, how the use of planets in SF work is trivial, how the use of individual planets in individual SF works is trivial, all three of these escape me. And the reviews for every one of them shoudl source it, for the people who believe that basic plot elements can not be taken from the work itself.DGG (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Manticore. Wl219 05:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Close per WP:SNOW Artw 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a valid page per all the above, especially User:RandomCritic. Wikipedia is not a hunting ground. The exploration of planets is one of the most common tropes in science fiction. --JayHenry 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional companies

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

Incredibly loosely-associated collection of topics. Ranging from the sinister DHARMA Initiative, to the meta-fictional Vandelay Industries. Unacceptable per WP:NOT#DIR. Eyrian 23:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as a valid index to a discreet and identifiable concept that serves better than a category would. FrozenPurpleCube 23:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Though somewhat long, it's drawn from multiple sources, and it works better this way than as a bunch of Wikipedia articles. Who knew that there were THAT many fictitious mining and petroleum companies? Some of this doesn't belong, but there actually is a reason for making note of fictitious names that have already been used, the main one being to make them readily identifiable as a fictitious company; the secondary reason being to prevent re-use. Nom almost had me persuaded until the WP:NOT#DIR part. Which of these companies am I supposed to call on the telephone? Mandsford 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• From WP:NOT#DIR: Wikipedia is not a place for "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". --Eyrian 01:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

From the same section: "such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations," which while an unbounded condition, makes me wonder, exactly what does a loosely-associated topic mean there? I suggest instead of asserting this is one, you convince us why it's a problem in its own self. FrozenPurpleCube 02:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It means that there is no real commonality between these items. Understanding one doesn't really help to understand another. These companies aren't in the same universe, they don't work to the same ends, they aren't all incorporated in the same way, they don't employ the same sorts of people, they aren't even all real in their own fictional settings. Aside from being fictional, they've got virtually nothing in common, and their tenuous association means very little to their function. --Eyrian 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, commonality is being a) fictional b) a company (which in this case is referring to a corporation with a further division based on the involved industry. Works for me as a reasonable basis for a list. After all, it's not like the Fortune 500 is really any different. They don't work to the same ends, they aren't all incorporated in the same way, they don' employ the same sorts of people, etc. This isn't a list of companies organized along the lines of Dupont or Companies that follow the tenets of Adam Smith. That would be its own separate list. Sometimes a generic list is helpful for general browsing, as opposed to a specialized list. They can co-exist, as redundancy is not a bad thing. FrozenPurpleCube 04:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that the Fortune 500 has hundreds of independent references signifying its importance as a list. Try again. And it doesn't matter at all if the list is helpful. It still is unencyclopedic. I could really use a sandwich recipe right now. Therefore, the Wikipedia article on sandwiches should have that information? Wrong, because that's not what an encyclopedia is about. --Eyrian 04:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But we can still have articles like List of Japanese companies. By analogy we can say that this is the list of companies that exist in one place, a fictional world. -- Taku 06:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That the Fortune 500 has hundreds of independent references is probably why it has an article on its own. Though oddly none of those references are on its page. The only links are to the list itself. Or search engines. Huh. However, this is a list of companies, which is a different concept than an article on fictional companies. Attempts to confuse the issue by saying this is just like a recipe are not convincing. These pages are nothing like recipes. If you want to worry about the content of the Sandwich article, try Talk:Sandwich instead. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Fortune 500 is completely different. The article there is an article about a real-world list that has achieved notability. This article is a list of companies. There is no authoritative source, just what Wikipedians add. The analogue of the Fortune 500 article would be the "Wikipedia's List of fictional companies" article. Totally different issues, and they work on a totally different basis. And no, the sandwich point is very relevant. You're claiming that usefulness is important. I am showing you that it is not. --Eyrian 18:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't shown me in any way that usefulness in terms of navigation isn't important. You're merely asserting it without actually proving it. If anything, you're showing me that WP:BURO is more important. FrozenPurpleCube 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Of course this list offers little to nothing in the way of navigational utility, since the vast majority of items on the list do not have articles and will never have articles and many of the blue links are not articles on the companies but instead are redirects to the fiction from which the item is drawn, which have their own links in the same line. Yeah, we're just swooping around the fictional company articles off this list! Otto4711 19:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's a great argument to the navigation value of this list, that many of the companies will never have articles. That is indeed a valid reason to keep this list over using a category. If you want to remove the redirects so they don't go to the main work of fiction, well, that's your choice. I could see it either way. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Nomination fails on its merits. Nominator continues to fail to understand what a "loosely associated topic" is, and as such continues to make bad nominations, tying up Wikipedia editors' time. How is this different from vandalism, other than being even more harmful to Wikipedia's coherence and integrity? RandomCritic 02:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is different from vandalism because the nominator is engaged in a good faith effort to improve the project. You may not like the nominator's efforts but you have no call to question the good faith of either the nomination or the nominator and your continual accusations and comparisons to vandalism are a staggering incivility and failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete would be better of as a category. Artw 02:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Manticore, Mandsford. Edward321 02:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The list format permits even contextual information which a format does not. FrozenPurpleCube explains the details well, and they are further discussed in the first AfD, which I read as keep 11 to 6, 8 months ago. If anything, I think the understanding of what makes a good list has increased since then, and this one is a good list. DGG (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete over categorization of fictional things and list of loosely associated topics. What does Shigamatsu Han and Galaxy Corp have to do with each other? Put the notable ones in a category and delete Corpx 05:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Manticore. Wl219 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep lists can still be encyclopedic and this one is indeed so. -- Taku 05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep helps navigation within and use of Wikipedia.KTo288 17:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the excellent arguments above, particularly Manticore. Fairly obviously this is a misapplication of what "list of loosely-associated topics" is meant to apply to. --JayHenry 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as others have pointed out above, there is nothing "loose" about the association between these articles and, more importantly, lists provide a way of navigating articles that is far superior over the use of categories (they allow more context, other sorting then A-Z and are more user friendly). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Eyrian had me convinced until Fortune 500 and List of Japanese companies. The sandwich example that he brought up was totally off-topic and pushed me towards Keep. Thanks Eyrian for convincing me that this is a useful list. — Val42 00:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful list, per Manticore. Hektor 05:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ridiculously obvious delete - This is clearly and unquestionably a directory of loosely associated topics. It is a list seeking to capture every fictional company across every possible medium with absolutely no regard to the triviality of the appearance of the company. There is absolutely no encyclopedic value in a conglomeration of every time some video game designer puts a fake company name on a billboard in the background of a video game. This is not a "list of companies that exist in one place - a fictional world" because this list does not restrict itself to a single fictional world or a single fictional universe. It is trying to capture every fictional world in every fictional universe. It tells us nothing about the companies on the list, nothing about the fiction from which they are drawn, nothing about any inter-relationship between the listed items (as there is none), nothing about the concept of fictional companies and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep An unacceptable re-interpretation of what wikipedia is and is not based on personal taste. The list is clearly superior to a category. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would have closed this no consensus, but none of the arguments for keeping present anything that could be used to correct this article's problems. There is nothing provided that can refute the WP:OR/WP:NPOV problems presented by the nominator without rewriting the article. --Coredesat 04:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Overturned own closure to no consensus. --Coredesat 03:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nude celebrities on the Internet

Nude celebrities on the Internet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This reads like a personal essay, and while written in a somewhat encyclopedic way, there are no references to substantiate the topic to suggest that this is more than just original research, or a POV fork. Note that this is a former featured article... from 2003, that is. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If ever there was an article that needed some illustrations.... Damn. Mandsford 00:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Come on Mandsford, don't be bashful. Thousands of pictures need to be added to this article immediately to allow editors a proper chance to assess its merits or otherwise. Nick mallory 01:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• If not, someone can invent Whackipedia. Mandsford 21:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Hornet35 02:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The topic is notable enough to warrant an article. What this needs are a few sources added and perhaps a new title. I don't see this being OR as the article doesn't seem to be creating new knowledge; it just lacks sources. When it was described above as a "personal essay" I was expecting something a lot worse than this. The list of examples should be vetted per WP:BLP, though. 23skidoo 04:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete content is almost entirely original research, with lots of synthesis. Corpx 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this reads like an essay, as the tag on it implies, and I don't see any reliable sources to indicate that there's been any kind of formal study or reporting on this topic. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP - Prurient interest aside, it is enough of a cultural phenomenon, that it often gets significant press coverage (The Jennifer Aniston case, and recently the Nick Lachey/Vanessa Minnilio case) and probably warrants an article. It just needs to be cleaned up to be more encyclopaedic and "fleshed" (pun entirely intended...) out with sources... --BaldDee 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is presently weakly referenced, but per Google Books [2] there are lots of books commenting on the phenomenon of people looking at said photos, real or faked. No original research needed. Edison 20:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The subject is clearly notable, but the article is almost wholely unreferenced and original research. We can do a better job than this. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually make it full Keep. A former Wikipedia:Featured article being deleted outright is just not a good idea. We can rebuild it. We have the technology. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Bonus points for the Six Million Dollar man reference. Italia^vivi 19:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A selective list that has no criteria for selection. Hard to see how it can ever be considered anything other then an indiscrimate list of information. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional buildings

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

Shockingly loose association of topics. Unacceptable per WP:NOT#DIR. Eyrian 23:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This IS weaker than most lists nominated tonite. I once had a girlfriend who was shockingly loose. Mandsford 00:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Split this would be better as separate pages for each of the existing subsets. FrozenPurpleCube 02:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete again per list of loosely associated topics. Categorize any notable ones and delete this list Corpx 05:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep out of solidarity with all the other "list" articles being nominated for deletion, as with all articles can be improved. KTo288 17:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This article's prose can be improved, but that doesn't mean it should be kept. (I'm not so much challenging your reasoning as trying to banter about deletion policy with my adoptee.)--Chaser - T 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per KTo288, User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Roi, arguing from essays is fine, but let's look at the deletion rationale in terms of policy. Eyrian is arguing that these are loosely associated, which is a problem in part because the grounds for inclusion are unclear. For example, can we include every important building in every Grand Theft Auto series in this list? (There's already one such building.) What about other video games? Perhaps requiring that everything listed here pass some non-arbitrary test. For example, surely Hogwarts belongs, but the mall in Liberty City? Probably not. How to differentiate between the two...?--Chaser - T 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A good question. Maybe the talk page is the best place to handle it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, there is nothing "loose" about the association between these topics and lists provide a way of navigating articles that is far superior over the use of categories (they allow more context, other sorting then A-Z and are more user friendly). This particular article does need better sourcing though. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Directory of loosely associated topics. There is no way that to buildings being fictional or two fictional things being buildings makes them connected. Fails WP:NOT#DIR by design. Jay32183 18:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 14:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional counties

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

Incredibly loosely associated set of topics. Unacceptable per WP:NOT#DIR. Eyrian 23:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Incredibly loosely? There are fictional people, fictional towns, fictional countries, fictional st... no, nobody would accept a fictional U.S. state. A fictional county is the rural version of a fictional town, a means of avoiding a lawsuit. Thus, William Faulkner can say, the story takes place in Mississippi, but Yoknapatawpha County is not a real Mississippi location, so don't sue me, okay? Mandsford 01:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Give it time. --Eyrian 01:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See List of fictional U.S. states. FrozenPurpleCube 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - should be a category. Artw 01:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. County organization is not universal, and the use of it in fiction is notable. RandomCritic 02:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Counties are a known concept of local organization. Possibly split by country. FrozenPurpleCube 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is a marginally useful assemblage of information, certainly not merely a directory. older ≠ wiser 03:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The country a novel is set is is a loose association? As for the other stuff, yes, give the deletors time and they will try to remove everything dealing with the fictional world except the articles for the books and the authors, as if the themes and the settings were not important. I've said before that the intent is to remove them all, and been challenged, but I see it is now confirmed. Perhaps they might like to specific a few which hey think are good, if they think any are, or even a few which they think could be improved to be good. This is a policy change, attempted by repeated afds. The policy itself could never get agreement. Once this is over, if there is any space before afd rounds 2, 3 and following, we need to work not just on getting the deleted ones improved and restored. but a clearer statement of policy that these articles are to be permitted and encouraged.

When I came to WP, I never imagined I would find myself defending popular culture articles. I thought I needed to improve and defend articles on more academic scholarship, and that's what I've mostly been doing. I thought the foundation of the encyclopedia, its basic core, was popular culture, and if anything was sound, that part was--not just the individual articles on individual books and movies and games, but the articles on themes and characters and basic plots. (and that the "serious-minded" people would need to expect to put up with that) Seems I was wrong, and a very persistent few want to destroy it, possibly under the impression that themes and all that about works of art are unimportant. We need these articles or we lose our base. DGG (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I thought it said "countries" as well, but about a COUNT-Y rather than COUNT-RY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 16:52, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

There's been no policy change. All we're seeing is unreferenced, trivia-laden articles get deleted. There is no prohibition on popular culture being sought. The problem is that these sorts of articles tend to attract solely unreferenced, trivial mentions. Cultural studies articles are absolutely acceptable, but they need to be referenced, just like any other article. Why on Earth should an analysis of plots and themes be permitted to escape from the requirements of verifiability? --Eyrian 05:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per list of loosely associated topics. Transcending across works of fiction to find similar things = trivia/loosely associated. It is one thing to write about things with notability, but collecting bits and pieces from unrelated works of fiction and assembling them together is trivia (to me) and not encyclopedic Corpx 05:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Many articles attract "...solely unreferenced, trivial mentions." to delete any article which does so on sight is to throw the baby out with the bath water.KTo288 18:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. This has gone too far. We are slowly dismantling Wikipedia's greatest strength above all other resources in the history of mankind. This continued deletion of verifiable content that a handful of editors doesn't like is making Wikipedia worse. This is valid per WP:LIST and it's not any of the things at WP:NOT. --JayHenry 18:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as others have pointed out above, there is nothing "loose" about the association between the topics and lists provide a way of navigating articles that is far superior over the use of categories (they allow more context, other sorting then A-Z and are more user friendly). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a list of Fictional Counties seems very useful to me, and ideal content for WP. --RedHillian 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of books about astrology

List of books about astrology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I believe that a list of books about <topic> is a violation of "WP is not a directory" in WP:NOT Corpx 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Gotta agree with Corpx on this one. The intent appears to be to keep adding as new books come out, or as old ones are discovered. Lists of books should be recited if one is referring to them from an article, but not as a card catalog heading. Mandsford 01:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and Rename to list of important books about astrology, and then its just an editing question. Not theat there isnt quite a lot of editing to be done . DGG (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, re: directory. Shoester 06:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but rewrite or improve. MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superhuman strength

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

I've tried saving this article but it is just on a steady course into a long list of random fictional "super strong" characters favoured by individual editors. Non-encyclopedic, no academic discussion, limited to original media sources. Redirect to List of comic book superpowers. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with nominator. I also found it confusing that many of the characters listed are not "human". I expected an encyclopedic topic with this title on notable feats of superhuman strength undertaken by people through history. The fact that the article title makes no reference to fiction makes this particularly difficult. The Redirect looks a sound proposal. --Dweller 18:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep / rewrite - I don't see anything essentially wrong with the article. It's not a crufty list, has adequate references, I do think that it needs more information in-universe style and comparability to real-life "super" strength. Other than that it's fine, is there something amiss here? Lord Sesshomaru 22:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Like I said, this was attempted but there are simply no academic of media sources which discuss this as a real concept.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There's no real topic here, just an accumulation of loosely related detail. Mowsbury 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep have a look at the what links here, its probably used as a link from every superhero fictional character with superhuman strength. To delete this article could mean having to rewrite a definition of superhuman strength in every single one of these articles.KTo288 15:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ridiculous. Superhuman strength has no consistent definition; it means something different in every context. We don't need an extended article to deal with a dictionary definition (i.e. "stronger than a human"). --Eyrian 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have a better idea — instead of merging it or anything like that, how about we just place the {{rewrite}} on top? This is a notable feat in many works of fiction and what I believe is needed is more time to maintain this page per WP:WAF style. The {{In-universe}} tag would have to be put on the article also. Any other ideas? Lord Sesshomaru 17:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Sesshomaru. Much of the content appears to have been sourced, although some improvement is still needed, as well as an in-universe tag. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No opinion on this, other than that I enjoyed where the author writes, "These are only a handful of the most well known from the vast number of characters with greater than human strength" and then lists about 50 different persons. How can you have so much in a "handful"? Superhuman strength, of course.... Mandsford 01:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, and OR. References go to primary sources, from which original interpretation is derived. --Eyrian 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Same logic as above - The Hulk reference goes to The Hulk. How may sources are books that discuss Superhuman Strength? MarkinBoston 01:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite - seems like a valid subject for an article, just needs some work. The listy stuff can probably go. I would investigate using some of the Science Of Superhero type books as sources. Artw 01:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• That would be original research without proper academic sources on the subject. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. A worthwhile topic, though listing every super-strong superhero (almost all of them) would be overkill.RandomCritic 02:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. While the current article is far from perfect, it is a subject which is deserving of a presence on the wiki. The community would be served best by keeping it, and posting a notice on the page indicating that there are potential violations of the style guide and WP:NOT#TRIVIA. The article is certainly salvageable and should not be deleted because some contributors continue to insert OR and trivia into it. -Interested2 04:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: Find an example of out-of-universe notability on the subject. Merging into the list of superpowers would cover the topic sufficiently.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: Response to Superhero Play: To Ban or Not to Ban?; Childhood Education, Vol. 74, 1997. Or perhaps The Homeric Way of War: The 'Iliad' and the Hoplite Phalanx (II); Greece & Rome, 2nd Ser., Vol. 41, No. 2 (Oct., 1994), pp. 131-155 better suits your fancy. Maybe Dependence in Anesthesia Providers; Psychosomatics 40:356-359, August 1999. Superhuman strength is not only a fantasy construct but a concept in nanotech development, drug research, and hardware such as powered exoskeletons. If you prefer mainstream media discussions on the subject of superheros and superhuman strength as opposed to scholarly articles relating to the subject, I'll be happy to provide those too. -Interested2 13:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't consider any of those sources at all sufficient, but whatever. If a lot of people like it, that's all that matters, right?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• If you find these sources insufficient, I suggest that you either demonstrate why or refute my statement that superhuman strength is an area being pursued in drug research, nanotech development, and military hardware. Whatever you do, don't just dismiss my arguments on the basis of "I think you just like it". Invoking Wikipolicy to stifle debate and cast those who disagree with you as rules-weak editors is not constructive in the least. -Interested2 15:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: After further research on the subject, I feel I must revise my opinion to that of Strong Keep. There is enough real-world relevance to this topic that the article should be kept and revised to include it. -Interested2 17:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite agreed with Sesshomaru. C'mon this is not crufty list and can be improved. Carlosguitar 14:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We're split down the middle, with good arguments on both sides. - KrakatoaKatie 08:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional institutions

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

Incredibly loosely associated topics, ranging from Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane to the Academy of Inventors from Futurama. Unacceptable per WP:NOT#DIR. Apparently, any group of fictional people with a name can qualify. Eyrian 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep highly organized list, possibly could be split further, but that's not a deletion concern. FrozenPurpleCube 23:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• You are arguing that there is a tight association? How is this not a collection of loosely associated topics? What has Arkham got to do with the Academy of Inventors? --Eyrian 23:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I said. Thanks! FrozenPurpleCube 23:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I did. Is this a loosely-associated set of topics or isn't it? If it is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Eyrian 23:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Please articulate your reasons, and don't just link to rules. Your concerns merit possibly splitting into discrete lists that are more closely connected, not deleting. FrozenPurpleCube 23:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Because loosely-associated topics isn't what Wikipedia is about. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information, and lists of loosely-associated topics do not provide that. --Eyrian 00:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But this list does provide information. Don't you see it there? Or are you reading some other page? Institution X is found in media Work Y. Clearly informative to me. Could perhaps be a bit more detailed, might work better as several different lists, but hardly what I would call loosely-associated within those sub-sets. FrozenPurpleCube 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What's informative to you doesn't matter. What matters is that there are rules about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia does not, for instance, contain how-to information, because that is not within its scope. Just as collections of loosely-associated topics such as this do not belong. --Eyrian 02:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:BURO. Arguing the rules must be followed because they are the rules is not convincing. Please recognize the spirit of the rules as being the foremost concern, not the literal interpretation of them. (And there are arguments about what's a HOW-TO and what's not. Go check out some older AFD's if you want to see.) FrozenPurpleCube 04:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The same page says Wikpedia is not "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". And any list provides information. Loosely associated topics get deleted because they are rarely useful. CitiCat ^♫ 04:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And??? Are you not aware that the BURO part is providing a context for which any rules should be judged? And note how undescriptive the loosely associated section is. Quotations and aphorisms are listed, but not fictional companies, countries or institutions. So pardon me for saying you need an argument that it's not useful, not just saying "oh but loosely associated topics are rarely useful" . That may be true, but it's missing the connection to the case at hand. FrozenPurpleCube 04:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a rule with a principle. This isn't "The article forgot to dot an 'i' and cross a 't'", this article is fundamentally not within the specified scope of what Wikipedia is. The spirit of the rule is that Wikipedia doesn't contain directories of loosely associated topics. And this violates that. --Eyrian 04:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the "loosely associated" argument is sort of weakened by the fact that there is specific criteria, that is accurately described by a given word, which has a clear definition. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That definition seems to be pretty broad to me. --Eyrian 06:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the spirit of the rule is meant to describe things which are problems for Wikipedia by not being encyclopedic. You haven't just failed to convince me there's a problem, you've not even really tried. FrozenPurpleCube 14:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Too loosely associated, too vast to make a useful list. CitiCat ^♫ 23:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Citicat, far too broad a criterion to be a useful list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Only on Wikipedia... for every person who is obsessed with building up gigantic lists of fictional things, and there is another who is equally obsessed with tearing them down. The rest of us enjoy watching the fight. Mandsford 01:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - celarly neds to be dealt with as a category. Artw 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Split into several different lists, mutually linked. There's no intrinsic objection to the content, however; this nomination is, like others of its sort, an incredibly bad idea masquerading as "policy". In fact Wikipedia policy doesn't and shouldn't forbid lists of this type. RandomCritic 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and split. I agree that combining these all into a single list, named so approximately, was not a good idea. Of course, if it were, split, i expect people to say the individual types are not ssubstantial enough to be significant. Still, I'd rather ahave a small number of better focused articles.DGG (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Divide and conquer is a great way to get something deleted. Little articles that seem insignificant on their own are a lot easier to get deleted than one cohesive article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

packaging things that really belong separately into a article where they dont quite fit doesn't help either. But that is a question to be decided by the editors, after the community decides, as I suppose it will, that the overall topic/topics is encyclopedic.DGG (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that a couple of subsections have since been demerged into their own articles after they grew to the point where they were worthy of them. You can see such links of "For X, see X" in the lists, e.g. political parties and terrorist organizations. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Manticore. Wl219 05:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article fills a gap for fictional things that are in categories equally notable to other fictional things (e.g. List of fictional schools, List of fictional presidents, List of fictional brands, List of fictional companies). As for breadth, here's Wiktionary's entry on the word "institution":

noun 1. An established organisation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, culture or the care of the destitute, poor etc.

The argument a la "this list can contain anything as long as it is (insert set of defined criteria)" would seem to miss its mark -- and especially since a number of otherwise qualified entities are listed as exceptions at the very beginning.

-Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Hopefully some sections can be spun off eventually.(RookZERO 04:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
• Keep per Manticore. Though the concept behind it seems tenuous, the list turned out well. There are plenty of blue links, the list makes good use of the available space, and it doesn't seem to contain spam or low-quality stuff. EdJohnston 01:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list; agree that it's much better represented as a category or series of categories -- Samir 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per samir, there's so many it jsut wouldnt work --Childzy ¤ Talk 20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with EdJohnston in that the list is unintuively maintainable and functional. It gives more information easier than a category or twenty on the subject would. This article would be too broad to be useful, as it's been said to be, if it was just a massive and completely unstructured list, but each section is pleasantly narrow. --Kizor 23:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This list seems to be excessively complex and, as stated before me, unmaintainable. I really don't see the connection between Arkham Asylum, Stargate Command, S.P.E.W., Get Rid of Slimy Girls, the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo, and most of the other institutions on this list. The list may be organized, but it still is hard to control and sprawls across way too many topical areas. Even within the smaller organized lists, the content is not necessarily useful or even related- what do G.R.O.S.S., the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo and the Order of the Phoenix really have to do with each other anyway? It also violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; the institutions, organizations, etc. in this article are largely unrelated and far too numerous to be useful. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Each section is made useless by the presence of the other sections? --Kizor 00:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In a way,yes - this list is way too long, and the importance of the individual sections is undermined by the general indiscriminancy of the article. Hospitals, prisons, and asylums are not in the same category as government agencies, activist groups, and brotherly orders - in fact, government agencies, activist groups, and brotherly orders are all separate. This list just lumps them all together as "fictional institutions". But as I said, that's not the only thing. The sections are also indiscriminant within themselves (note what I mentioned about the "Brotherly Orders" section). This is a really long and indiscriminate list, and as I stated before, a violation of WP:NOT by that. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect. ELIMINATORJR 23:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sainrith mac Imbaith

Sainrith mac Imbaith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Sainrith mac Imbaith is nothing but a patronymic. He has no narratives and no attributes. There is nothing that can be added to expand the stub. A line in the article on Macha saying she was the daughter of Sainrith mac Imbaith is all that can be said about him. Nicknack009 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Macha, I think his one-two line mention there should be enough as nom mentionned.--JForget 00:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity tantrum

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

• Delete as an unencyclopedic article composed of original research.--Jersey Devil 23:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Who among us has not gotten angry? No more noteworthy than instances of a celebrity taking a crap in a public restroom. Mandsford 01:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please don't give anyone ideas - they'll make a list of it. MarkinBoston 01:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this is original research and, while there are some references there, it doesn't really indicate the phrase "celebrity tantrum" is an encyclopedic concept. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Celebrity tantrums exist. Tantrums by the rest of us also exist. What is needed to support an article on this topic is not an editor selecting press reports of celebrity tantrums, which is original research and synthesis, but rather as sources we would need overview articles, going into why celebrities have more or different tantrums from ordinary mortals. Such magazine or journal articles may well exist, but I could not turn them up. Edison 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Consensus is that it is a useful index. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional countries

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

List of loosely associated topics, ranging from trivial to central, unacceptable per WP:NOT#DIR. What's Eurasia got to do with Elbonia? Eyrian 23:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete list of loosely associated topics. This documentation of everything ever mentioned in a fictional work has got to stop. All trivial information and have no direction to each other except that they were all stuff mentioned in a fictional work Corpx 23:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a valid index of material which does get covered in sources like [3]. Oh, and did you see Fictional country? If there's anything to be done, maybe merging with that, or splitting the lists off. FrozenPurpleCube 23:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• That covers the main article. It doesn't make anything like this enormous list worthwhile. --Eyrian 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Index to material. Very convenient. Especially since several of the countries do have articles. FrozenPurpleCube 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Better done by a category, with subcats if need be. --Eyrian 00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Worse done with a category, since all categories provide is names, and don't cover non-articles. I've never understood the preference categories to the point of excluding lists. Even at their best, I find them less informative than I do any but the poorer lists. FrozenPurpleCube 02:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• That Fictional country article is full of WP:OR Corpx 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hence my preference for a bare list that doesn't take a position. Feel free to tag it for cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Manticore. And categories and subcategories ("subcats") of fictional countries? That's supposed to be a good idea? Help me Jesus. Mandsford 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Another in a series of poorly thought-out and unsubstantiated nominations of fiction-related articles. These nominations are damaging to Wikipedia and should stop, it being very obvious that Wikipedia has precedent for these kinds of lists and in no respect forbids them. It should also be obvious to anyone that Ruritania, Graustark, Syldavia, Orsinia and so on belong to a common genre of fiction which is worthy of study. This kind of bringing material together is highly helpful. RandomCritic 02:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Manticore, Mandsford. Edward321 02:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The list is useful and interesting. Fictional countries play different roles and the examples given provide a good way to identify them: exotic settings, utopias, dystopias, stereotype countries, satires and so on.Tavilis 09:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was transwiki to Wikisource. - KrakatoaKatie 08:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LSU Tigers football supplemental information

LSU Tigers football supplemental information (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails to comply withWP:NOT#INFO: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, including statistics. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a relist to generate more thorough consensus. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Preface--I'm the one who created the article. The reason I created it was to make the main article, LSU Tigers football, consist of mostly prose, like the similar article Oklahoma Sooners football. The information is not indiscriminate and it is encyclopedic when combined with the information in LSU Tigers football. A side note here, in conjunction with this article, I also plan on writing more text in the LSU Tigers football article. The LSU Tigers football article previously contained most of the information in the LSU Tigers football supplemental information article, which made the main article very long and look quite messy. So basically, this article is not really just a random compilation of stats and figures, but rather a companion to a (soon to be) thorough history of LSU Tigers football. Seancp 00:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource per "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic" in WP:NOT Corpx 04:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back the important stuff in a more concise way. There are articles which are simply collections of miscellaneous information, and this is a prime example, starting from the title. If it is necessary to divide an article, it should be divided by topic, by historical period, or by some logical and self-evident way. Not main and supplementary. Seancp, I urge you to withdraw this article and do it differently.DGG (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource, though it needs references and citations as there are none. The information could be incorporated when by-era (by-coach) pages are created as well to keep it here on Wikipedia if desired. A lot of the tables have "blank" data which needlessly makes the page larger than it needs to be as well. MECU≈talk 16:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into main article.--Bedivere 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Harlowraman 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 23:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki per Corpx and WP:NOT. It'd be great to preserve a cleaned up version of the information in wikisouce. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Is this the type of thing that Wikisource wants? I thought they wanted published books that had fallen into the PD, not original works. --B 04:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Poorly named. If you want to split an article off a main article, find a meaningful subtopic. --Coppertwig 00:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki or Delete do not keep, Wikipedia is not a sports alamac Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does the policy say that? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's my saying of indiscriminate collection of information part in WP:NOT for sports articles that only consists of info like stats :p. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I see: It violates WP:NOT#STATS. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Am I imagining things or didn't we have a "tables" namespace for a brief time? That would be the perfect place for something like this - the appendix of the encyclopedia. -B 04:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe an "Appendix" namespace. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Shapeless information that is not interesting to read. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If Oklahoma Sooners football could fit everything important into the main article, why can't this one? Don't be afraid of leaving out the less important information. You can let people find that kind of stuff on the web. EdJohnston 04:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Detailed comment follows:

What NASA does, and what's suitable for Wikipedia, are two different things. NASA is a government body of the USA, that has made a policy decision to represent its employee breakdown to its constituency, the United States, because this suits its purposes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that has policies and practices outlining suitable content, and which differ from the needs of government to highlight specific national, cultural, or ethnic representations, or from the wishes of various groups to raise their profile. This AFD is based on Wikipedia policies, not NASAs.

Many "keep" and at least one "delete" arguments do not pass this test:

1. What "NASA itself" does, or what NASA recognizes
2. The comment by AntonioMartin that does not in fact advance an actual argument but only a statement
3. "Where will it end" or "look at those articles there" - according to policy AFD's are basically discussed on their own merits, not by reference to what happened/might happen elsewhere
4. Verifiability - verifiability isn't a basis to keep, if the actual main concern is failure to meet inclusion criteria in the first place
5. "It's useful/interesting" - see WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, which have broad consensus at AFD
6. "Wikipedia is not paper" - true, but this isn't a license to include everything, in this context this just means we often include things a paper encyclopedia wouldn't, not that we include everything or don't check further against usual inclusion criteria.
    
   Finally three arguments that need more in-depth comment:
    
7. "The proud people of Puerto Rico ... have a right to know about their contributions to the Space Program of the United States" - They may well learn their contributions, and should rightly be proud of them. But if the article is not suitable, no matter how interesting it may be, it belongs on a different website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there are lines over what is encyclopedic and non-encyclopedic content. Concerns such as national/ethnic pride, perceived insult of inclusion/omission, and "right to know" are not criteria which overrule established policies on Wikipedia.
8. That a user feels strongly towards (and identifies with) Puerto Rico and seeks to advocate for highlighting of Puerto Rican people so that his children will see them promoted as role models - Wikipedia is WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, it is a neutral encyclopedia that contains information on remarkable role models and terrible ones alike and dispassionately. Wikipedia is not to be used to promote causes, whether for positive or negative purposes.
9. That because individuals have received awards the group is notable - this isn't in fact a common consensus or practice on Wikipedia. Awards might be listed in many ways, including (without prejudice) under NASA awards, List of NASA employees given awards, List of NASA award winners by nationality, or within individual biographical articles. You may want to see if one of those would be more acceptable to the community instead.

Looking at actual policy based views: Policy based delete views mostly center around:

• WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a place to collect arbitrary lists of information (such as cross categorizations of a kind not usually considered encyclopedic), nor (same policy) is it a place to self promote - which includes ones own social group and interests - or (one might add) a directory. There are broad concerns that WP:NOT is breached by this article. There are many kinds of factual information which do not belong in Wikipedia.
• WP:NOTABILITY - that the list of "People from ethnic/national/regional/cultural group X who work at organization Y" is not usually considered notable per se. I concur. (Nebraskans in NASA? Mormons in the DOJ?) Raised by multiple users.
• (Over) categorization - OCAT is primarily related to categories not articles, however this guideline reflects a more general communal view on cross-groupings, and should probably not strictly be applied only to categories. OCAT notes that in general people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. This seems a valid concern. Not one person presented evidence that this is the case. Did these people become NASA employees or the award winners gain awards because they were Puerto Ricans? Not one contributor has tried to present evidence to make this case, and possibly this would be considered insulting. For most, their connection as Puerto Rico exemplars had zero correlation or connection with their jobs and (for award winners) their awards.

Against these concerns, the only policy based "keep" views I can locate in this discussion are not very well founded. They center around:

• WP:LIST, which unfortunately is not policy, it's a style guideline. That doesn't mean it has no weight, but its primary purpose is to describe how lists should look, not whether an article based on one is suitable in the first place. Essentially irrelevant at this AFD.
• An assertation that the list is notable. I would agree that it is factual, verifiable and probably has multiple reliable sources. But the debate seems to suggest that it is WP:NOT suitable content in encyclopedic terms, and "People from group X employed by organization Y" is usually not notable.

The fact that Puerto Ricans are included amongst the contributors, employees and award winners of NASA may or may not be notable; a group-promotion article, or list of them all in a biographical index is strongly contended not to be appropriate content. Notability alone is not enough. WP:NOT seems to be a serious, reasonable (and policy-based) concern of the "delete" editors... and the "delete" view also forms a significant majority once the comments based upon non-policy arguments on both sides are all set aside. My apologies for what must be a disappointing outcome to its creator and proponents. I have userified the page to User:Marine 69-71/Puerto Ricans in NASA in case its creator wants to use it elsewhere.

[edit] Puerto Ricans in NASA

Puerto Ricans in NASA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete because the article is essentially a list of short bios of people of Puerto Rican decent whom are members of NASA and I believe that is in conflict with WP:NOT#INFO. Any salvageable content could be placed in individual articles for the people mentioned. I also just want to add that this is an article by User:Marine 69-71 and that though I deeply appreciate and respect your contributions to Wikipedia as overwhelmingly good, I do not believe this particular article belongs on Wikipedia. I hope you don't take any personal offense to this.--Jersey Devil 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable intersection of job + race per WP:OCAT Corpx 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Corpx. non-notable intersection --Coppertwig 23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Tony the Marine 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep- You people obviously did not read WP:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. 1.) That's for categories. 2.) See the exceptions mentioned. Here, they are listed by both nationality and career. Although I agree such long biographies of so much individuals in a single article are unnecessary, I believe It could be turned into a decent list. I would be willing to do that, should this article be kept. --Boricuaeddie 00:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Where exactly does it say its only for categories? Lists should adhere to stricter guidelines than categoreis Corpx 01:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Ha! Obviously you did not read the page. It says it's for categories everywhere! Also, there is a guideline for lists; it's called (surprisingly) WP:LIST. --Boricuaeddie 13:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Even NASA itself goes to length of pointing out Puerto Rican ethnicity of their employees in official communications Puerto Rico native Pedro Rodriguez named director of major engineering department at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center,NASA Engineer Opens Doors To World Of Science and others, and even has an award named for a Puerto Rican cartoon character Charles Scales recognized for efforts at Marshall’s National Hispanic Heritage month celebration. Puerto Ricans in NASA are a strong presence that is recognized by NASA as a discrete grouping. Nominator should have investigated more about the topic before placing for AfD. We do not take personal offense at WikiProject Puerto Rico, however, the topic is notable and we are not a paper encyclopedia. Go delete some real cruft, this article is encyclopedic and notable. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Cerejota's comment basically sums it up if NASA recognizes it so should Wikipedia, why doesn't somebody takes a nice PROD tour trough all of those Robot Chicken episodes articles, that can be quite entertaining considering the large ammount of them. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment regarding the above "strong keep" votes this can be interpreted as a violation of WP:CANVASS.--Jersey Devil 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • From WP:CANVASS: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion." He posted it at a Wikipedia talk page. That's not a vio. --Boricuaeddie 00:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, see WP:CANVASS#Friendly_notices. One of the exceptions is posting a message at a WikiProject's talk page. Please assume good faith and read the guidelines carefully before accusing a trusted administrator of vote stacking. --Boricuaeddie 00:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, This not about an ethnicity! An ethnicity would be "Puerto Rican-Americans". This is about the people from Puerto Rico who have their own identity, culture, language and customs. Antonio Martin 00:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Being Puerto Rican is much more than an ethnicity, unlike what most people think being Puerto Rican is actually a nationality, not all Puerto Ricans are Latino, we have Asian Puerto Rican of all kinds for instance, hell I am 25% Japanese myself and am still Puerto Rican. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Should we really have articles listing individuals of each race/ethnicity/nationality in every government/private organization? Corpx 01:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course. That's why we're here. We're not paper, so we can have every single bit of notable information without having to destroy the half of the Amazon. --Boricuaeddie 01:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • We're not paper, but neither are we an indiscriminate collection of information Corpx 01:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
        • What is indiscriminate about this article? Thanks!--Cerejota 06:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Lists of people by nationality, who work for a company is indiscriminate, in my opinion Corpx 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin User:Marine 69-71 has been canvassing on user talk pages. See here and here Corpx 01:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hum, according to what I gathered in your "talk page", you didn't seem to mind when others canvassed you (smile). Tony the Marine 03:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• • People, please. Read WP:CANVASS#Types_of_canvassing before assuming bad faith. He contacted two people; like that's going to affect an AfDs outcome. Dios mío, a lo que hemos llegado... --Boricuaeddie 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • How does that not make it canvassing? Whether its two or 1000, canvassing is still canvassing. Corpx 01:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • How does that not make it canvassing? Again, read the guideline, specifically the very first sentence, and you'll have your answer. --Boricuaeddie 01:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is not "Canvassing", I notified two persons, not to ask for their vote or whatever. I states "to those who may be interested", which means that I have no idea if they are interested. If they are, then it is their option to make whatever determination which they see fit. Tony the Marine 01:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Not only it is not canvassing, the two people he contact are people he is in regular contact with over WikiProject Puerto Rico, because we provide some knowledge on the AfD process.

That said the policy is clear:

This is NOT canvasing as per WP:CANVASS#Types_of_canvassing:

Friendly notice (it was), Limited posting (two people), Neutral (not even a request for an opinion, simple notice of existence), Nonpartisan (no arguments for or against provided), Open (done in user talk pages, doesn't get more open).

This is an attempt to poison the well with insinuations instead of discussing notability and encyclopedic value, with sources, as have been provided. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Were do lists of ethnicity related to careers end? Puerto Rican's in Law & Order, Chinese in Fast Food, Indians in Retail? Mexicans in Information Technology, Caucasians in the cleaning industry? Cultural diversity is one thing but isn't race relations all about getting away from segmenting people based on their race? Articles like this do nothing to help that. WebHamster 01:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If there was an article about "Nebraskans in NASA", would it be noteworthy? For that matter, do we need articles about all the people in NASA, and where they're from? While I can appreciate civic pride, articles about the places of origin of federal government officials are a case of too much information. Mandsford 01:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but how many Nebraskans have received an original award created specifically for them? --Boricuaeddie 01:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment', There is diference between ethnicity and nationality. Puerto Ricans are the latter. Did you know that Puerto Rican is not a "race"? I'm sorry, but unfortunately segmentation is a reality in the United States. Tony the Marine 01:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note The nomination is deceiving since it is not about people of Puerto Rican descent "per se" which would indicate an ethnicity, but of the people from Puerto Rico which is a nationality. Tony the Marine 03:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is incredible! NASA, the aerospace industry and the top computer companies recruit 50% of the UPR-Mayagüez engineering graduates, making Puerto Rico one of the best represented jurisdictions in NASA's payroll, and now we're told that's not notable? The main reason I contribute to wikipedia, now with over 50 articles and stubs, is because I want Puerto Rico's kids to be able to rely on wikipedia for their homework and I want them to stumble across all the notable accomplishments of those who stay in school, get good grades and become positive role models. It is particularly notable that one particular ethnic group is very well represented in the professional staff at NASA... and by the way, no one has asked me to vote on this issue!Pr4ever 04:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• NASA recruits all kinds of graduates and not just kids from PR. While noble, WP is not a motivational tool, but is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. Corpx 14:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Note, The definition of "nation" does not only apply to an independent state. It also applies to people of common ancestry occupying a set territory. Can also mean people of diverse backgrounds joined together for a mutual purpose. Commonly a generic term for a particular country state. But can also have nations within nations as with the Native North American nations within USA and Canada. On October 25, 2006, the Puerto Rican State Department declared the existence of the Puerto Rican nationality (see: Juan Mari Bras). Puerto Rican nationality was recognized in 1898 after Spain ceded the island to the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War. In 1917, the United States granted Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship without the requirement that the islanders renounce their PR citizenship. Since then, everyone born in Puerto Rico are both Puerto Ricans and U.S. citizens. According to Constitution of Puerto Rico, Article III, sec 5 which was ratified by both the government of the United States and Puerto Rico, the people of Puerto Rico are U.S. and Puerto Rican citizens. The proud people of Puerto Rico are not an ethnicity, that is an insult. Puerto Ricans have a right to know about their contributions to the Space Program of the United States. Tony the Marine 04:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• NASA is an equal opportunity employer, meaning that race/national origin did NOT play a role in the hiring of these said individuals, making this intersection non-notable Corpx 07:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Possible KEEP - If references to Puerto Rican employed by NASA (articles or other notability) can be shown in reliable independent sources, then keep. Maybe someone can research and edit it rather than delete? --BaldDee 15:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per the comments above, NASA does make a big deal of integrating Puerto Ricans into their NASA ranks, which I feel makes this ethnic-group-in-career significant. Furthermore as a point to all, lets try to keep AfDs more civil please, and keep our comments on the content of the article rather than the conduct of the users :) SGGH ^speak! 16:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take this as offense but we are not an ethnic group. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Re-pharsed, I have rephrased and revamped the article to make it clear that it is not about an "ethnicity". The article is includes short profiles and references which establish notability. Thank you. Tony the Marine 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - per the comments above, SGGH, BoricuaEddie, et. al. --David Shankbone 19:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per comments above and after changes implemented as a result of the above discussion. While the article should have been kept anyway, Tony's recent changes to the article have made this a no-brainer keep. --Alabamaboy 23:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note to Closing Admin I just want to say the following. This issue about "ethnicity" or "nation" is not relevant at all to the deletion rationale. The reason this article should be deleted is because it is a database of mini-bios in conflict with WP:NOT#INFO. It is not something someone would find on an encyclopedia which is what Wikipedia is suppose to be. All of the "strong keep" votes made above are made on the basis of WP:ILIKEIT. Comments such as "why doesn't somebody takes a nice PROD tour trough all of those Robot Chicken episodes articles" are not keep rationales based on policy. Should the closing admin decide to keep this on the basis of such votes it will be a true determent to the afd process as it will make the implicit statement that rationales made on the basis of ILikeIt are on equal footing with those based on policy.--Jersey Devil 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Give me a break, I made myself clear when I commented, the last part was a comment with a strong basis to it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that not all of those who wish the article be kept are ILIKEITs. I agree that the mini-bios are unnecessary, but the article could become a decent list, for the reasons stated above. The issue about ethnicity is relevant, as it is an important reason for keeping the article. Also, if the will of the community is to keep the article, then it should be carried out and not ignored, as I think our rationales are pretty valid. --Boricuaeddie 01:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note to Closing Admin, I would hardly consider three sentences as in the entery of "María C. Lecha" a mini-bio. These are "not" mini-bios, which would contain date of birth, place of birth, the "early years" so on and so forth. The enteries only mention their accomplishments within NASA and therefore are very short profiles with job descriptions. Wikilinks are provided which will lead the reader to real mini-biographies. The article is referenced and properly sourced and written within Wikipedia's policy. Tony the Marine 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• This is not about ethnicity, but rather about making a list of people, by nationality, who work for any notable company. Should we have list of Indians/Chinese/Japanese/Mexicans/etc etc who work for NASA? NASA, as an equal opportunity employer does NOT take race or national origin into consideration when the hirings are made, so being "Puerto Rican" is no different than being an average American. (Does this mean we should have a List of Americans in NASA) ? Corpx 05:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Sure we should have a list of "notable" Americans in NASA, as is the case with the Puerto Ricans in this artilce. Not all Puerto Ricans are listed just those who are notable. You are really making a big issue out of nothing. You already voted your oppose, so let it be and go on with your life. Tony the Marine 06:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not "vote" per se, so my comments are not relegated to one part of the AFD, but anywhere there's discussion Corpx 06:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Every person highlighted in the article meets the notability requirements, its not like we are listing every single Puerto Rican that has worked for NASA, if it was like that the article would have exeded the allowed limit a while ago. I'm starting to believe that you have some kind of racial bias as a result of your "kids from PR" comment. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If they do, then you should create individual articles for them. As it looks now, all the citations are from nasa.gov - whereas notability must come from significant coverage from independent sources. I'm not going to acknowledge to your assertion of racial bias with a response Corpx 07:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure why don't we do one better, since the reasoning to delete was WP:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference wich 1.doesn't apply to articles and 2.doesn' apply here since this isn't about an ethnicity, what is the policy based reasoning that you are going to put to support that delete vote? and I don't want any of those WP:IDON'TLIKE arguments like NASA contracts people regardless of origin or flacid reasoning like "hey we don't have a List of notable Americans in NASA, why should they?" I want strong policy based aruments that may persuade me to change my opinion. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, where does it say that WP:OCAT does not apply to articles? You can look at "Trivial intersection" as "two traits that are unrelated" Corpx 07:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Again even if it did this isn't Over Categorization this isn't an ethnic group its a nationality, I can agree to the deletion of this under this rationale if we delete every article that involves "List of American something" or "American something something" then I will agree to the deletion of this as OC. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any articles that are about "List of Americans who work for <company>" ? If so, I'll gladly endorse their deletion. Corpx 07:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a policy supporting this besides that febble WP:OCAT interpretation to change my mind. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"two traits that are unrelated" - Being Puerto Rican descent and working for NASA, as NASA does not take into account the country of origin when hirings are made Corpx 07:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's still dancing in the same roof, under that basis we can delete List of North American birds since birds don't take in account the region they are when flying over it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That analogy makes no sense to me as birds are found in suitable habitats, plus that article has independent sources attesting to the notability of the topic Corpx 07:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your allegation makes no sense to me either, this article may have problems with its format and it may need independent references but that doesn't justify deletion instead of cleanup, oh! and birds don't take that under consideration actually they are the first to migrate out of the habitats if a natural phenomena occurs.- Caribbean~H.Q. 07:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but NASA is not a "company", NASA is an agency of the United States government, responsible for the nation's public space program and the article is not a "list" per de, but short profiles of Puerto Ricans who are playing an important role in the United States Space program. Tony the Marine 07:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Being a governmental organization should be no different that a notable company in this case. Are people of Puerto Rican descent contributing more to the space program than people from other descents? Their national origin has no impact on their contributions at NASA, nor did it on their hiring Corpx 07:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? then why is it so easy to find independent sources dicussing it? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are links profiling people who work for NASA, who happen to be Puerto Rican. As I said before, I dont know how you can make a relation when NASA is strictly prohibited from considering race/national origin when hirings are made. Corpx 13:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In the face of sources? Ignore them at your peril. Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is what your argument sounds like. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

They are not only profiles, all of the emphazize the fact that they are Puerto Rican and that their contributions are important to the agency and all of them speak of the importance of Puerto Ricans to the agency, hell one of them is titled: "Hispanic NASA Engineer Helps Space Station Crews Stay Fit". - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that a Non-Puerto Rican engineer is not capable of doing these said tasks? They're employed by NASA because of their skill & educational background, not their national origin. These are done by engineers, who just happen to be of a certain national origin, not done by engineers, because of their national origin Corpx 05:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Very Strong Delete This is an attempt to evade WP:N.WP is not a biographical dictionary. There would be no objection to an article on a subject including mention of people without articles, but to try to write an article about 20 or so less-than-notable people by lumping them all together in unencyclopedic. Those who are notable, should get articles--I think a w of them would be. This makes as much sense as having an article on all the people from Florida who work at NASA, with a paragraph on each. Website material, for NASA perhaps, if their PR people think it useful, but not for us. If anything, it perpetuates the idea that it is unusual enough for a Puerto Rican to work for a technological organization that it should be mentioned in an encyclopedia.I I also mention BLP concerns--do these people want to have bio paragraphs in WP--they are not notable enough to be included against their wishes. f I were in the category, I would think it demeaning. DGG (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• If you believe that these people, among them the director of everything that is related to the environmental instruments which the United States provides to the European Space Agency in order to operate the MetOp, a European satellite that provides environmental information to both Europe and the United States.; the Communications System Lead Engineer for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Mission, the person in charge of the design of the communications systems of the "Global Precipitation Measurement”; the person in charge of the development and application of multifunction control/display switch technology in 1983 and Development and application of a microprocessor-based I/O system for simulator use in 1984; the director of the NASA program known as "Living with a Star/Solar Terrestrial Probes". satellite; the pioneer of the development of position-sensitive detectors that will provide an order of magnitude more pixels (and thus larger field of view) than traditional single-pixel X-ray microcalorimeters and so on and so forth are less then notable, then I feel sorry for you. We Puerto Ricans are proud of our contributions to the Space Program of the United States and this article is written with the idea of educating the world that for such a small nation, we have made more contributions in proportion to population to the Space program then most States. I know, I know that there is a little gang that gets its kicks from deletions of articles and lists and that is something I guess that we will have to deal with Tony the Marine 07:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per User:BaldDee. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, especially since the user seems to have a copy in userspace. --Coredesat 04:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diane Beers

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

Non-notable biography, split from White antiracists in western Massachusetts Fightindaman 21:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Speedy close as bad faith nom I think this is a bad faith nom. Fightindaman split out the bios himself from White antiracists in western Massachusetts (see [4]), then created separate bio articles for the people listed ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), and has now moved all of those individual bios to AfD as well. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Beers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Ayvazian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fitzpatrick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Magovern, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Ramsey (activist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Vernon-Jones. Wl219 22:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: And as I mentioned in another nomination, the split was not my idea. I could have proposed the article for deletion as a whole, but I thought that by splitting them it would allow each to receive its own judgment rather than have to be judged together. Fightindaman 23:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete However the page got here, it rises or falls on its own merits. I did a search and found no support for notability. One published book and some radio interviews doesn't do it. She could be merged back into another page if necessary. MarkinBoston 01:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete notable neither separately or together. the idea of lumping them together -- under a rather absurd title -- why Western Mass. ? was probably because none of them could stand up on their own. We only do that for families, as far as I'm aware. If she should be merged back anywhere, it shouldnt be on the basis of what part of the state she's in. DGG (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment from the author -

On the advice of DGG I will withdraw this page and redo the article with more reliable sources.Sanlaw33 00:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, user has a copy to work on. --Coredesat 04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrea Ayvazian

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

Non-notable biography, split from White antiracists in western Massachusetts Fightindaman 21:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Speedy close as bad faith nom I think this is a bad faith nom. Fightindaman split out the bios himself from White antiracists in western Massachusetts (see [11]), then created separate bio articles for the people listed ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]), and has now moved all of those individual bios to AfD as well. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Beers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Ayvazian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fitzpatrick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Magovern, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Ramsey (activist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Vernon-Jones. Wl219 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: And as I mentioned in another nomination, the split was not my idea. I could have proposed the article for deletion as a whole, but I thought that by splitting them it would allow each to receive its own judgment rather than have to be judged together. Fightindaman 23:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete notable neither separately or together. the idea of lumping them together -- under a rather absurd title -- why Western Mass. ? was probably because none of them could stand up on their own. We only do that for families, as far as I'm aware. DGG (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment from the author

On the advice of DGG I will withdraw this article and recast it with more reliable sources and appropriate text.Sanlaw33 00:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandra Fitzpatrick

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

Non-notable biography, split from White antiracists in western Massachusetts Fightindaman 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Speedy close as bad faith nom I think this is a bad faith nom. Fightindaman split out the bios himself from White antiracists in western Massachusetts (see [18]), then created separate bio articles for the people listed ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]), and has now moved all of those individual bios to AfD as well. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Beers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Ayvazian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fitzpatrick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Magovern, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Ramsey (activist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Vernon-Jones. Wl219 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: And as I mentioned in another nomination, the split was not my idea. I could have proposed the article for deletion as a whole, but I thought that by splitting them it would allow each to receive its own judgment rather than have to be judged together. Fightindaman 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any evidence of notability. MarkinBoston 01:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete notable neither separately or together. the idea of lumping them together -- under a rather absurd title -- why Western Mass. ? was probably because none of them could stand up on their own. We only do that for families, as far as I'm aware. DGG (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment by the author

On the advice of DGG, I will withdraw this entry.Sanlaw33 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anita Magovern

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

Non-notable biography, split from White antiracists in western Massachusetts Fightindaman 21:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Speedy close as bad faith nom I think this is a bad faith nom. Fightindaman split out the bios himself from White antiracists in western Massachusetts (see [25]), then created separate bio articles for the people listed ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]), and has now moved all of those individual bios to AfD as well. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Beers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Ayvazian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fitzpatrick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Magovern, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Ramsey (activist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Vernon-Jones. Wl219 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: And as I mentioned in another nomination, the split was not my idea. I could have proposed the article for deletion as a whole, but I thought that by splitting them it would allow each to receive its own judgment rather than have to be judged together. Fightindaman 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No sign of notability. MarkinBoston 01:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete notable neither separately or together. the idea of lumping them together -- under a rather absurd title -- why Western Mass. ? was probably because none of them could stand up on their own. We only do that for families, as far as I'm aware. DGG (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment from the author

On the advice of DGG I will withdraw this entry.Sanlaw33 00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Signature LP

The Signature LP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Only a rumour (WP:NOT#CRYSTAL). Notability is questionable. Alksub 21:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete An artist reportedly named this as his next album in another song? Yeah, let's break this crystal ball. Sasha Callahan 22:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CitiCat ^♫ 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Serves me right for not checking sooner. I originally proded this per WP:CRYSTAL before it was contested. As then and now the same policy applies. Pedro |  Chat  14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia Ramsey (activist)

Patricia Ramsey (activist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biography, split from White antiracists in western Massachusetts Fightindaman 21:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Speedy close as bad faith nom I think this is a bad faith nom. Fightindaman split out the bios himself from White antiracists in western Massachusetts (see [32]), then created separate bio articles for the people listed ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]), and has now moved all of those individual bios to AfD as well. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Beers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Ayvazian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fitzpatrick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Magovern, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Ramsey (activist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Vernon-Jones. Wl219 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: And as I mentioned in another nomination, the split was not my idea. I could have proposed the article for deletion as a whole, but I thought that by splitting them it would allow each to receive its own judgment rather than have to be judged together. Fightindaman 23:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Close nomination without prejudice. Nomination should be based on the article, not on its relationship to another problematic article. --orlady 23:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment by the author

On the advice of DGG, I will revise this article by taking out the personal information and focus on her antiracist publications. Thus, I will add more of the books and articles she has written.Sanlaw33 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• revision by author -

I have edited down the article per recommendation of DGG. I would like to rename it by deleting the activist word in the title. Sanlaw33 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not add comments in such a way as they appear in the table of contents for the day. Thank you.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russ Vernon-Jones

Russ Vernon-Jones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biography, split from White antiracists in western Massachusetts Fightindaman 21:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'm sure he's a nice guy but nothing to indicate any particular notability (other than - possibly - in association with a single incident). Article also violates WP:NPOV ("Russ’s believes that racism can be ended, but that it won’t happen quickly or easily. But he is in for the long-haul regardless of the critiques that come his way. For when it comes to confronting racism, being active for Russ is the only way to be"), and (while I can't prove anything) reeks of a copyvio — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Speedy close as bad faith nom I think this is a bad faith nom. Fightindaman split out the bios himself from White antiracists in western Massachusetts (see [39]), then created separate bio articles for the people listed ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]), and has now moved all of those individual bios to AfD as well. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Beers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Ayvazian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fitzpatrick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Magovern, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Ramsey (activist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Vernon-Jones. Wl219 22:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that this is a bad faith nominator to split off an article and immediately nominate it for deletion Corpx 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Not done in bad faith. If you look at Talk:White antiracists in western Massachusetts it was another editor actually posed the suggestion and said that he was going to split them, but never returned to do so. Fightindaman 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I just dont think that you should've split them off, and you turn around and nominate them for AFD. Corpx 23:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but it seems to me that splitting them gives each of the individual biographies its own review, rather than trying to judge them all as a rather loosely-affiliated group. Fightindaman 23:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Same as the rest of this group. MarkinBoston 01:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment He recieved some notice [46] by local and national papers because of an event at his school, and he was quoted in this one: [47] but it seems to be one of those things where they ask a random person what they think and quote them in an article. Sci girl 04:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment by the author

On the advice of DGG I will withdraw this entry in its current form and recast pre-split article with more reliable sources.Sanlaw33 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 badly sourced, pov, advert like. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White antiracists in western Massachusetts

White antiracists in western Massachusetts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article created as a collection of biographies. Biographies have been split, and the article now lacks substance. Fightindaman 21:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete agree with nom, article lacks reason to exist since it lacks material. Pharmboy 22:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Speedy close as bad faith nom I think this is a bad faith nom. Fightindaman split out the bios himself from White antiracists in western Massachusetts (see [48]), then created separate bio articles for the people listed ([49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]), and has now moved all of those individual bios to AfD as well. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Beers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Ayvazian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fitzpatrick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Magovern, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Ramsey (activist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Vernon-Jones. Wl219 22:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: And as I mentioned in another nomination, the split was not my idea. I could have proposed the article for deletion as a whole, but I thought that by splitting them it would allow each to receive its own judgment rather than have to be judged together. Fightindaman 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article is badly sourced and confining the debate to it.Feel it does not deserve a separate article.Harlowraman 22:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete them all even if the moved content is moved back. Even if this is a bad faith nom, it's brought a genuine problem to light; once you strip out the NPOV violations, OR and general advert-like tone from each entry, there's not much left - and is there really any possibility that "White antiracists in western Massachusetts" passes WP:N as a topic in and of itself? (google count minus Wiki mirrors on the phrase brings up a grand total of 0 articles - the one hit is in fact still a WP mirror). Whatever the reasons for the nomination I'd have to go with delete the lot as it stands unless WP:RSs can be found for the individual entries by the time these AfDs close — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this article (the intersection of "white", "antiracist," and "western Massachusetts" is not inherently notable). Close individual-person nominations without prejudice -- the articles should be considered on their own merits and not nominated for their association with this list. --orlady 23:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not just antiracists, but White antiracists.... in Massachusetts... not all of Mass, but the western part of the state... but if we keep it, let's divide it into "Catholic White antiracists in western Massachusetts" and "Protestant White antiracists in western Massachusetts" Mandsford 01:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The people in the removed content may or may not have been notable, but white Western Massachusetts antiracists is really, really not a notable intersection. Delete this page and let the individuals' pages stay or not on their own merits. Sci girl 04:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not bad faith, the nom is as i see it trying to avoid bad faith, by listing everything in both possible ways, to see if either the individual or the group articles will hold. I think the group article is absolutely absurd, as being constructed on an irrational basis. If the bios are notable, they will stand on their own.If anyone thinks one is, it's up there to be individually supported. DGG (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (G4). CitiCat ^♫ 00:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican Power's

Mexican Power's (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability, has been deleted 3 times recently and just won't die. Even the image supplied is likely to be deleted as no copyright info was provided and is likely a copy vio. Pharmboy 21:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 and salt, non-notable group. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:07, 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. --Coredesat 04:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ozello Shrimper

The Ozello Shrimper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable invention ("the Ozello Shrimper has never been mass commercialized.") Alksub 21:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources giving coverage are found Corpx 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn and trivial. Leibniz 13:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Taking the definition of Notability from Wikipedia - Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below......

Note that all requirements listed in the aforementioned "guideline below" are present in this article. The contention in this case is whether "the number and nature of reliable sources needed" are adequate. It is my opinion that "given the substantial depth of coverage and quality of the source..." provided (Florida Sportsman) and the existence of other documentable though not currently included sources (The St. Petersburg Times articles), this invention, while certainly not "famous", "important" or "popular" is certainly "notable" and any objections to its notability are therefore unfounded.

Arguments to the effect that the invention is "trivial" are certainly unfounded given the depth of coverage afforded to it in the aforementioned expose by a leading State level magazine dedicated to saltwater fishing in the largest sport fishing state in the United States. If we accept the Wikipedia definition of Trivia, TRV we can clearly see that the documentation provided isn't miscellaneous or unfocused and that it is in fact a cohesive article related to a singular topic. While integration with appropriate categories is far from complete, it certainly isn't impossible or unforeable once the appropriate categorizations and their related information are finished. Spaatz 15:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regent Cinemas

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

Two cinemas with sixteen screens; article unreferenced and reads very much like promotional material (eg, a section on the "Seniors' Gold Club"), only nontrivial coverage I could find was a human-interest story from a local paper. Eleland 20:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability - looks like spam. MarkinBoston 21:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per very narrow scope of notability. Corpx 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Small, but notable cinema chain, and runs the historically significant Regent Cinema in Ballarat. Rebecca 01:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment How do you figure? All I could Google was a trivial mention by a local historian on a website which is funded by the city. I'm sure it's a lovely 1930s building, but we need objective evidence of its' notability - you can find a good print source maybe? Eleland 13:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  Google isn't research. If you must delete it, then do it - but you're deleting something that is actually notable, and for which sources could easily be found if someone bothered to actually research instead of making assumptions out of thin air. Rebecca 04:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rebecca, notability must be proved. A subject isn't "assumed notable unless you can prove otherwise". —gorgan_almighty 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rebecca, I asked you how you knew it was notable. Instead of sour grapes, can you provide sources which imply notability? You say they could easily be found - can you find them for us? Eleland 12:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't seem to be subject of any reliable secondary sources as required by WP:N. —gorgan_almighty 12:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] osFinancials

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to OsFinancials. Hu12 20:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, nothing further to add. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as the framework wherein the article is written is common used for software. WP:SPA? Yes, want to keep this article op to date to provide good info, but have no intension to write others. Everyone is specially encouraged to update/change the article (it's a stub) so if someone is feeling this should written differently, please do help, till now I was the only one. For the record, the article is notable as more then 6000 community users use this open source software around the world, and that is a number in SMB business accounting area. Jan 10:00, 27 August 2007 (CET) Jverlaan has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Hu12 08:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimatom

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

Debut album, artist has no claim to notability. Alksub 20:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as not asserting notability. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Google throws up literally nothing. J Milburn 21:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable album by non-notable artist. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jakew 23:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - album of no note from an artist of no note. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• I also attempted to find any Internet existence of the cited "professional reviews", and found nothing to indicate that "Rap World", "Rap Guide", "Indepent Guide", "Doomsday Rule" and "Kingston Drive" are legitimate sources. Delete. --Paul Erik 03:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semenmedjatre

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

This Egyptian king does not exist and is probably an error. He is said to be the successor of Nebiryerawet I, but the latter king was succeeded by his son Nebiriau II. Clear cut case for deletion. Leoboudv 20:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Doesn't anyone check things before piling on? It took me all of five seconds to find him listed on Websters (in the 17th Dynasty). Plus, while this may have been created by an anon IP, it's an anon IP with over 100 valid edits, not a vandalism spa — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - He's right, though the anon linked only has about nine contributions. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Oops, pasted the wrong link. Try it now — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, real Pharoah. On another note, nominator forgot to add the AfD tag to the article, I have now done so. J Milburn 20:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete He only appears on Wikipedia because someone invented him. He never appears in scholarly books like Aidan Dodson's 'The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt.' Also, Webster's dictionary site is a mere copy of Wikipedia's original article. Here is a professional web site by a real Egyptologist (Jacques kinnaer) on Theban dynasty; it lists Nebiriau/Nebiryerawet I and II but never Semenmedjatre. [55] Leoboudv 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Very good point and I concede I didn't notice it. He does appear on sites that aren't Wikipedia mirrors, making me still (weakly) go with keep, but I concede he isn't mentioned as much as I'd expect (although there are a lot of potential variant spellings of the name). FWIW, the same anon creator did also create Nebiryerawet I, Nebiryerawet II, Mentuhotep VI and Thuty, which makes me think they do know their 17th dynasty pharoahs — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Further comment Could he be identical to Semenenre, who seems to appear in roughly the same place in the dynasty? — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete The point is no one would confuse Semenenre with Semenmedjatre. Professional Egyptologists don't. They have Semenenre as either Semenre or Semenenre--not Semenmedjaatre. I don't even know where the name Semenmedjatre came from, I'm afraid. Leoboudv 22:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete this king is a phantom. He is not listed in TourEgypt's comprehensive list of 17th dynasty kings unlike Nebiriau I or II. Scroll to the 17th dynasty and have a look: [56] Artene50 21:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• The only way to be sure that this pharoah existed is to find - and cite - lots of sources that say he did. In the absence of those, delete. Jakew 23:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I looked up the 17th dynasty in 3 different books by renowned authors, and neither of them mentions him. – Alensha ^talk 23:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Changing to Delete. I'm unable to find a WP:RS for him as well after some fairly thorough looking. The other Egyptology contribs from this author possibly need looking at as well in light of this — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• You echo my thoughts here. Semenmedjatre should be deleted because he didn't exist. Leoboudv 19:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of fictional locations. --Coredesat 04:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Cities

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

Page duplicates function of Category:Fictional towns and cities Nucleusboy 19:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect Be bold and redirect to List of fictional locations. Lugnuts 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Has anyone ever looked at the categories? Why do we have entire categories devoted to "Fictional cities in Wisconsin", "Fictional cities in Ohio", "Fictional cities in Illinois", etc? "Category: Fictional towns and cities" (which includes places like "Springfield" and "Riverdale", but not "Point Place, Wisconsin") applies to the ones on this list, to be sure. But honestly, do we need 51 different categories for something where a simple list would do? Mandsford 20:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per list of extremely loosely associated topics. Being a place in fiction is a loosely inclusion criteria Corpx 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Per Lugnuts. ♠TomasBat 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Samir 03:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battery Hooper

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

An insignificant article about one small earthwork fortification in the defenses of Cincinnati. The site is currently home to a private museum which uses the earthwork for tourism and reenactments. No action occurred on the site during the Civil War. Spacini 19:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep What makes you say it's insignificant, and why should that matter even if it is? A quick google-skim shows it to be a bona fide historic site & museum and the subject of lengthy features in Smithsonian Magazine and the Kentucky Post — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- as Iridescent shows, there is substantial coverage in significant sources. J Milburn 21:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Since the site is now the location of the museum, I'd merge the two together. MarkinBoston 21:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Merge with what? The museum doesn't have a separate page — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There were over 20 earthwork fortifications built for the defense of Cincinnati in both Ohio and Kentucky. Would we presume to have one article for each of these gun emplacements? Would we attempt to do this for Bowling Green or Louisville, Kentucky--both of which had significant earthwork fortifications--or any other majorly fortified city? Hooper Battery can be addressed/merged with the rest of the fortificatons in the Cincinnati defenses in the article about the Defense of Cincinnati. I never said the museum wasn't bona fide, just private. Spacini 03:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While I realise the Cincinnati batteries are probably less well known, there's certainly precedent for doing just that^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7} — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Defense of Cincinnati, or move to James A. Ramage Civil War Museum (which is a city museum, hence public rather than private). The museum would seem more "notable" in Wikipedia terms than its location. --Dhartung | Talk 17:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Move to James A. Ramage Civil War Museum. The site has historic significance. I don't see any strong case for deleting this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 12:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a historic military site. It seems there might be a case for renaming. --Oakshade 17:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Samir 03:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmic Disco

Cosmic (Italian dance music scene) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article deals with Cosmic disco and Cosmic music, two not established terms if they're referred to as (a) music genre(s); references and the article itself refer to re-mixing techniques and associated music selections, also known in DJs' slang as "selecta", that were aimed to comply with the name of the nightclub (Cosmic); it's and it was not a real music scene, NOT a style of music at all Doktor Who 16:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V. The article is sourced, but the sources I read did not mention Cosmic Disco. 24.176.25.116 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a lot of this article. I'm not going to stick my neck out too far for it because it is pretty shitty, but for anybody else who's reading, all but one of the sources (Pitchfork) mentions "cosmic disco" or one of the other variants listed in the first sentence.--P4k 01:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also please note that one of the referenced interviews reports D. Baldelli stating "that there is no 'cosmic disco' genre". If the article subject (D. Baldelli) meets notability, the content may be referred to his personal "formats" and selection/remixing techniques.--Doktor Who 21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Which reference are you referring to? There aren't any interviews with Baldelli in the references. There's one in the "Links" section, but it's behind a registration wall now. One of the references is an article about Beppe Loda where he says something similar to that, maybe that's what you're talking about.--P4k 22:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge (or keep until appropriate merge is determined) - Ugh, music genres are so ill defined. The above anon editor is completely wrong about about the sources - all of them mention "cosmic disco" or whatever, with at least two attempting to define it. I don't know what an appropriate merge target would be at this time. The term seems to be used both as a vague, general descriptor for funky spacey dance music and as a more specific genre term. Wickethewok 03:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's really anything appropriate to merge it to. I mean the most specific subject that cosmic (in the sense of the 1980s Italian scene described in this article) could be considered a part of is something like dance music, and it's obviously not important enough to rate a mention there. If this is deleted I might try to rework it into an article about Daniele Baldelli, which would at least not involve the bullshit that accompanies trying to write about music genres.--P4k 03:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY. The topic is somewhat obscure, but it meets WP:N and WP:V. I don't know if it's a "music genre" or a "scene", but it is a form of music combined with a group of people in a time and place that became notable enough for mention in the press and at least a few books. On the search term "cosmic disco", Google has 36,200 hits, and Googel books comes up with 7. --Parsifal _Hello 21:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And did you poll how many of those google results are relevant to the subject of this article? ok, please go here, where we can find the most relevant results.Just 115, not so many, not enough to meet notability. Over.Doktor Who 22:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of those searches are misleading, but google hits are not that relevant anyway.--P4k 22:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that I did any research on the article. I have not. My point was only that there is information available that can be checked out. That's what I meant by referring to WP:HEY. If you read that essay, you'll see what I meant.

I'm not debating about if the article should be kept or not, I just did a bit a checking, looked at some of the references, and it seemed to me it's a nice little article that can be improved, on an obscure but notable enough topic. There was a cosmic disco scene in Italy and some people wrote about it. That's as far as I went. --Parsifal _Hello 22:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

really, the content itself may meet some (low) notability, but I'm sure it can't stay here as a music genre, or even a music scene, just remix format maybe could suit well. What do you think?Doktor Who 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the topic to answer that. This is just a deletion discussion. I think we should keep the article, and I believe it can be improved. Your idea could make the article better though, maybe it would be a good idea for you to edit the article or bring that up on the talk page. --Parsifal _Hello 00:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC).

My main concern here and in many similar cases is mis-categorization; if the article will not refer anymore to a supposed music genre or style, I have no objection, it can be kept on ikipedia. The most appropriate categories could be "DJ mix techniques" and "DJing styles": If they do not exist, can be created, for some ideas please see the not-so-much-unrelated {{Category:Radio formats}} and List of music radio formats.Doktor Who 00:51, 25 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 ^♫ 19:30, 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 keep. Neil ム 10:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sony Ericsson products

List of Sony Ericsson products (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Catalog of a company's products. Because Wikipedia is not a directory, this indiscriminate collection of unencyclopedic and temporal information should be removed. Mikeblas 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean-up Sony Ericsson is an important brand, and these product lists help anyone looking for information to find it easily. I do, however, think that this article should be expanded with extended information and sortable lists.Rwhealey 22:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:DIRECTORY. This is more a category. Lists of products are usually not encyclopedic. They are more something you would find on the company's website. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 22:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete' per not directory, nor sales catalog Corpx 23:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. wikipedia is not a directory. Lack of evidence of notability.
• Keep, it's under the correct syntax of "List of". It's a Wikipedia article list, For persons that want to lookup info on a device it's no different than the Disambig pages on here. In regards to promotion and wikipedia, perhaps all companies/bnusinesses should be removed from Wikipedia in total to stop their promotion full stop? Also most other companies have a similar list. If this is deleted they too probably should be deleted. Motorola, Apple, Microsoft, Intel 1, Intel 2, Nokia -- CaribDigita 15:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - subject covered by template and individual articles. Addhoc 15:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I fail to see how this is a sales catalog -- I see no price quotes. The nominator seems to think that all lists on Wikipedia are directories. If there is a consensus here to delete this article, I fully expect the nominator to nominate List of Google products, List of IBM products, Amiga models and variants, List of Intel microprocessors, List of Microsoft Windows versions, and List of Games for Windows titles next. --Pixelface 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Pixelface. This is not a sales catalog, directory, nor indiscriminate collection of information. It is a list of notable products manufactured by a notable company, and serves as an index to encyclopedic articles covering the various products of this company. The "temporal information" objection is addressed by ensuring that this list contains historical products as well as current ones. DHowell —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHowell (talk • contribs) 05:11, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Same reasoning as for AfD of Motorola products. See there for detailed argument. Highlights include: Compliant with WP:LIST; provides information beyond a category; provides structure and navigation; clear inclusion criteria. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep I don't know why everyone is so set on deleting everything on wikipedia lately but these are great lists that are hard to find anywhere else. This list, like all the other lists just need to be cleaned up. Is it just me or are people here getting lazier, instead of cleaning up articles they're looking for reasons to delete them. —TigerK 69 02:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - All these should have article or redirects. -- Petri Krohn 23:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep This request for deletion is ridiculous. In the whole internet - please present me a list of comparable quality and completeness. Anyone? Then the list is not temporal, it is growing. Unencyclopedic? Writing about electronic devices seems to be a crime around here nowadways, while listing endless World War II details is 'very encyclopedic' ... rigelt 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A list of company products that added some value might be keepable. For example, a list that could tie products to the history of the company, or with how its technology developed. A list like this one that just looks like random data makes me start thinking that Wikipedia is not a directory. I have seen product comparison tables with features shown in the table cells that seemed very helpful, in other words they were analyzing and summarizing the actual content of the products. A good example is List of home computers by video hardware. There is a general problem that there are not many featured lists in the technology area. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured_lists for evidence. Don't take this as implying that all technology lists are bad; at some point this gap might be filled. EdJohnston 04:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep For a person to come across this list, they would have to search for it deliberately--as opposed to the advertisement coming to them. I find this list useful for finding past products that are no longer available on the company's website. Instead of destroying articles, Wikipedians should be improving them, and this article already has an extensive index, we shouldn't waste it all. Drant 05:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I left the history there and have just redirected the page. Feel free to merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ericsson products

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

Catalog of a company's products. Because Wikipedia is not a directory, this indiscriminate collection of unencyclopedic and temporal information should be removed. Mikeblas 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Ericsson This article doesn't offer enough information by itself to warrant its existence.Rwhealey 22:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. wikipedia is not a directory. Lack of evidence of notability. --Coppertwig 00:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge with the main article as it is very much look like an advertisement flier.--JForget 00:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:DIRECTORY. This is advertising and not encyclopedic. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 19:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into List of Sony Ericsson products. It's not a sales catalog because there are no price quotes. And it's not a directory, it's a list. If the nominator is concerned about "catalogs" on Wikipedia, he should nominate List of IBM products, List of UNIVAC products, List of future Intel Core 2 microprocessors, and List of Linux distributions next. --Pixelface 04:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per Pixelface. This is not a sales catalog, directory, nor indiscriminate collection of information. It is a list of notable products manufactured by a notable company, and serves as an index to encyclopedic articles covering the various products of this company. The "temporal information" objection is addressed by ensuring that this list contains historical products as well as current ones. DHowell 05:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Sony Ericsson products, while removing the unsourced POV statements like "Very slim and sophisticated phone". —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and cleanup. This list doesn't need to have it's own article but it should be merged into List of Sony Ericsson products (Ericsson would probably be more appropriate) and cleaned up. —TigerK 69 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Ericsson already has a Products and services section. This list just needs to be merged into that section. —TigerK 69 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand to include telecommunications infrastructure. -- Petri Krohn 23:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mega AS Consulting Ltd.

Mega AS Consulting Ltd. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable company. Article reads like an advert. Created by a user Arnneisp (talk · contribs) with a name similar to the name of the CEO as claimed in the article. The main product of the company has been repeatedly advertised/spammed, and deleted, here at Wikipedia. I have just put the product article up for deletion too. David Göthberg 19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non notable and possible advertising. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly speedy delete as spam. Another maker of "solutions" outside the chemical industry. Even if this were a notable business, the ghastly peacock prose:

Mega AS Consulting Ltd was created in 2002 by IT veterans with a goal to create the best security solution for the evolving virtual world.

would surely justify the erasure of this version from the article history. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There no indications that the company is notable, no sources to prove it.--JForget 00:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as advert for nn company. Montco 02:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil ム 10:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Roland products

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

Indiscriminate list of information. Wikipedia is not a directory. Completely unreferenced. Mostly redlinks. Mikeblas 19:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a product directory. Jakew 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per not directory, nor sales catalog Corpx 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is not a sales catalog; there are no price quotes. Neither is it a directory nor indiscriminate collection of information. It is a list of products, many of which are themselves notable, manufactured by a notable company, and serves as an index to encyclopedic articles as well as developmental aid to indicate articles that might need to be written. Any products which are not particularly notable can be removed from the list, but this would still leave a valid list of many notable ones. Articles which can be improved should not be deleted (see WP:RUBBISH). DHowell 05:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with DHowell. Valid list of products/instruments. ♫ Cricket02 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 03:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eddy Allman

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

Reads very much like a self-promotional piece. The article was proposed for deletion in April 2006. No substantial change since. The name registers under 50 non-wikipedia Ghits and the stated status of "influential writer" is not supported by reliable sources. Pascal.Tesson 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete reads pretty much like a resumé, though real notabilty doesn't seem probable. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable. Academic Challenger 01:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is unquestionably a claim put forth that he is/was of some importance. I'm concerned however that as it stands the article is completely unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 04:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Sweeping claims, no sources (and no substantiating sources found in Google Books or Google News Archive). Plenty of "influential" music writers exist, with documentation. --Dhartung | Talk 17:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inventionism

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

This article is about a recently invented religion or parody religion. There are no sources, and it seems to me that it's probably unverifiable. P4k 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No sources, no assertion of notability (or even of having been heard of anywhere). Factoid: after the first prod, one editor remarked in an edit summary: "Inventionism is a rather notable theory/religion in the Metro Detroit area. In fact my college roomate has been interested in it for about a year"... --Goochelaar 19:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete nonsense/spam Jtrainor 22:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't quite meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles Banno 04:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'd like to see where this is going. It looks too well thought out to be worthless. I think nonsense is a little harsh as well. Gregbard 13:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, something like "I like it" is not a reason to keep an article: it must be about a "notable" subject, that is something or someone that is known, written about in third-part sources etc. We Wikipedians are not here to judge on the merits of new religions/theories/ways to peel potatoes. Happy editing, Goochelaar 14:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well pointing to something and calling it nonsense doesn't make it nonsense either does it? BTW, I never said I liked it. Gregbard 14:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your point about the nonsense is quite sound (but there are exceptions even there): anyway, I only referred to the objective criterion of the lack of sources. For all we know, the contents of the article might even have been invented while it was being written. Happy editing, Goochelaar 15:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Check out the referenced webpage and you will read 'Matthew Lowery and Devin Jenkins (two eighteen year olds from Detroit, Michigan) introduced the theory in early 2007'. It is a remarkable effort, but fails notability criteria. Anarchia 10:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete - not notable Banno 04:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete The article has only one reference, to an individual blog. Currently, the concept of inventionism is clearly original research, and original invention. The relevant Wikipedia guideline is crystal clear: "If you invent ... it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it." In addition, the article is advocacy. So far, the subject clearly fails Wikipedia's these criteria. If the bloggers are able to attract enough interest to have multiple notable sources discuss their new philosophy, at that time it would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. VisitorTalk 02:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete both.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cellular Authentication Token

Cellular Authentication Token (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is advertising for a product, not encyclopedic content. Article contains several false claims about the products security and when and who invented it. (See my comment about it at the articles talkpage.) Article has been deleted twice before, one "proposed deletion" and one "speedy delete". David Göthberg 18:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I just discovered that they made an article about their company too. So I just put that up for deletion too. --David Göthberg 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both, of course. --Goochelaar 20:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete sounds about right. Salvatore22 22:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not that it matters, but the creator of the article just removed the "Article for deletion" tag. (See this diff.) --David Göthberg 12:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Do NOT Delete A category of one-time-password technology of public interest — TELCOSEC-Mark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Moreover, as of now the only other edit by TELCOSEC-Mark is to revert to a deleted edit by STLMatt, the originator of this CAT article, in One-time password, suggesting sock puppetry. --Goochelaar 22:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as continued spamming. Montco 01:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as on-time-notability has now passed.--Gavin Collins 12:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 05:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christians in the Media

Christians in the Media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Tagged for speedy deletion with rationale

"A7 vague unverified and inadequate notability claim; IP editors have been removing maintenance / prod tags with no change to the article and no reasoning stated (probably COI-spam)"

Not a speedy candidate given the contested prod but I agree with the above. Pascal.Tesson 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's not about Willard Scott or Pat Robertson. It's a couple of sentences about an Australian company, called "Christians in the Media", that produces a TV show on an Australian cable channel, and the author apparently believes that the company is more worthy of an article than the TV show. Mandsford 20:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any support for notability.MarkinBoston 21:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Sydney Anglicans or delete per the advice in WP:ORG: Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. I added national radio and press coverage, but the subject doesn't yet justify an article of its own. Also, pace Mandsford it's a church, not a company. Seektruthfromfacts 17:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I can't see enough independent sourcing to support an article on the church/ministry (it appears to be part both), but there is enough sourcing to support content in the article for the Anglican Diocese of Sydney (which is where Sydney Anglicans redirects). GRBerry 20:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no content, no evidence of notability.--Sefringle^Talk 04:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Unniarcha. I just found out that there's an article titled "Unniarcha", so I'm taking liberty to merge this with Unniarcha. utcursch | talk 17:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unniyarcha

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

No context. While "Unniyarcha" is a notable Malayalam legend and ballad, it is unclear whether this article is meant to be about that or a film or stage portrayal of same name. The two cast member names don't line up with the 1961 film. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails Notability, Reliable Sources, Verifiability. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 19:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If the legend/figure is notable, there's grounds for an article (if I'm not mistaken, even minor folkloric figures can get their own articles, right?). The cast member listing does make it very confusing, but I believe the rest of the article makes it clear enough that it is referring to the legend. Although the context provided isn't very thorough, it still establishes what the article is about. Also, take note that the original article made no mention of any cast, this was added by another user. I would recommend simply removing that portion of the article. I don’t think verifiability is going to be a problem, and assuming that the legend is at least fairly notable (and it seems that it is), I’m sure that the appropriate sources are both existent, and easily accessible. Calgary 19:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fairly sure that Unniyarcha is a rather notable character, and that the legend surrounding her is as notable. (Unfortunately, I don't personally have the sources to back up this claim.) There is a film adaptation of the story by the same name, as noted by Askari Mark. I'm under the impression that the creator of this article meant to write about the film adaptation. Or perhaps he meant to write about the original legend and the adaptation (kind of like Chemmeen). He probably just didn't remember who the actors were; he just remembered that it was an old movie and probably concluded from this that the actors who performed in it were the "old" actors. --Kuaichik 23:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I've added some sources, and a Google search indicates that the legend is notable. utcursch | talk 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: If utcursch or someone is willing to take the article under their wing and develop it further, I'm willing to withdraw the AfD. As I said, the subject of Unniyarcha is notable; what's unclear is whether this article was supposed to be about the legend or a film or theatrical production. Utcursch's recent changes indicate a preference for developing the article along a clear path (the legend) and I have no problem with that. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  To be honest, I don't know much about the legend, since I am not a Malayali. But, this seems notable, and I'll try to find some sources and make the article better. utcursch | talk 05:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep its a crappy article, but the subject is notable. Also looks like this AFD is helping to improve it --Xorkl000 20:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pong project

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

Dictionary definition, neologism, no sources, unlikely to be anything more. Transwiki to Wiktionary? h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:NEO, no sources to show any use. The only thing Google's first 30 hits came up with is UrbanDictionary (and, of course, variations on the game Pong). Don't transwiki without sources. --Huon 17:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Huon. --Moonriddengirl 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a a neogolism or Dilbertism per h i s.Article appears to be a WP:POV fork from Project management. --Gavin Collins 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I can't seem to find any other information on this. Izzy007 Talk 00:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hostway

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

I'm not convinced the company is notable, distinct lack of sources which demonstrate notability or verify content. Prod was removed without any reason for the article not being deleted. Nick 17:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I think the article just needs a bit of a clean up with a few verificable sources, and then it'll be OK. Davnel03 18:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see any reason to delete. They may not be Coca Cola or AT&T, but they are a multinational, and seeing that quite few people have edited, there is interest in the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.120.164 (talk) 20:51, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The references provided are a very brief report about a survey they conducted, which verifies none of the article content; and a human-interest style profile of the CEO, which doesn't verify much of the article's content, and seems to be an un-analytic repetition of material provided by an insider. This may yet be a notable business, but Internet-based businesses probably need sharper scrutiny than hard goods businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but improve article. This business is notable, but the article is poor. A few additional URLs that help indicate its notability:

Hostway holds sway over a new domain - 2004 article in Crain's Chicago Business

Hostway Acquires Affinity Internet - 2007 merger makes Hostway one of the world's 30 largest hosting providers. Also see report on midwestbusiness.com

Hostway Server Migration Leaves Clients in the Dark -- EWeek article says that this is one the world's largest hosting companies; describes the disruptions that occurred in the Internet a few weeks ago when Hostway's server move went badly.

Review of Hostway in ecommerce-guide.com and professional review of Hostway on CNET

Frost & Sullivan presents award to Hostway

--orlady 23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, top-tier international webhosting vendor. 860 Google News Archive results, even Google Books results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 17:30, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep According to Hoovers.com they do over $16M in revenue annually and provide services to more than 600,000 customers including Disney and Coca-Cola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.144.62.67 (talk) 20:52, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)--
• Keep, appears to pass WP:CORP. Italia^vivi 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Travelaire

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

Non-notable company. Speedy (db-corp) was reverse per request for time to improve. Article was cleaned of copyvio and spam text, but fails to provide an assertion of notability. References requested but not provided. Fails WP:CORP. Evb-wiki 17:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I can't locate any third party sources to satisfy verifiability. --Moonriddengirl 18:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. They seem to be a fairly well established manufacturer of hard goods. As such it shouldn't be all that difficult to come up with at least a few reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep See its talk page, where some sourcing for WP:N is provided ([57], [58]). This AfD is a classic example of WP:BITE (intentional or not) by User:Evb-wiki. Wl219 22:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless significant coverage is found from reliable sources. Both the links above give what I'd characterize as trivial coverage. Also, please comment on the AFD, not the nominator Corpx 23:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Deleteno significant coverage is mentioned anywhere in the article, but if some is presented I will reverse my position. The assertion of notability is partially based on the fact that Airstream (a rival of the company in question) has a page. I suggest you read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Sasha Callahan 23:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep http://www.rvmechanic.com/rate_your_rv_results.html?rv_make=Travelaire for example. It is a major force in the RV market in Western Canada, am currently working on locating links but since it is something commonly sold in classified adds i am getting nothing but those returned on my searches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgal (talk • contribs) 13:57, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humagade

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

Non-notable company. Speedy tag (db-empty) was removed with added info, including a weak assertion of notability. References requested but not provided. Fails WP:CORP. Evb-wiki 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom unless additional sourcing is provided for claims of notability. I added a few external links about the company, but could not locate support for its major claims to notability, including the claim of national recognition as Best New Enterprise of 2003 Interactive Multimedia. --Moonriddengirl 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this business is notable, the current ad-speak prose style of the article:

. . . the talent at Humagade opened their doors in late 2002 in an effort to create a world-class development company that still worked like a small, boutique studio in its attention to detail, budget and deadlines.

is so irremediably bad that purging this version from the history is justified. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:29, 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. --Coredesat 04:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eurovision Song Contest in popular culture

Eurovision Song Contest in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable trivial mentions aren't a useful or encyclopedic article. RobJ1981 17:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A list of passing mentions or references is not enough to constitute a decent "in popular culture" article. The contents listed are not based significantly on the main subject, but are instead trivial references and allusions. Calgary 17:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because these references show the extent of influence and notability of the contest. Perhaps revising it in a manner that better explains the value of the article and that has more text than just a list would help, as well a reference section for each item. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It's interesting, but trivial, and unencyclopedic. Should an encyclopedia contain lists of references to things in popular culture? It's information, which can be interesting, but it may violate WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for not telling us anything about the Eurovision Song Contest in popular culture, but just listing examples. What's next, Popular culture in popular culture? --Huon 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The Eurovision Song Contest is popular culture, so this is already absurd. MarkinBoston 18:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per list of loosely associated topics Corpx 19:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• I normally try to defend these pop-culture pages, but I'm afraid I can't see anything to defend here. MarkinBoston is right to say that the subject is already a pop-culture phenomenon, so a pop-culture fork of it is pretty absurd. No vote from me, but surely the creators or anyone with a desire to defend this page can merge anything useful into the main article before this closes? AndyJones 19:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial mentions that violate WP:NOT#TRIVIA. --Eyrian 22:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since it's pretty much a list of the form "In [film], [character] says "Eurovision"", which really isn't particularly encyclopedic or pop-cultural. I'm also impressed with the argument that ESC is already pop culture, which is quite true. There may be one or two very significant things in this list which could be merged somewhere, but most of this really isn't it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't support this one either, because I cannot see the difference between what should be covered here and what should be in the main article.DGG (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of government agencies in comics

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

List of government agencies in comics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research, and even if verifiable, unencyclopedic collection of trivia. Groupthink 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my nom. Groupthink 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:NOT#INFO. --Evb-wiki 16:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep though possibly split by publisher. Sorry, but OR is a bad claim here since there are obviously references in the article already. If you're so unfamiliar with comics you don't know that the others can also be referenced? Then I'd say that's unforgivable ignorance. I don't see that this is a collection of trivia, especially since many of the agencies have articles of their own. This organizes them in a convenient format that's better than a category. FrozenPurpleCube 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  Reply. The intro graf reads: "All comic book fictional universes depict their own versions of our reality except with the added complication of men and women who exhibit superhuman abilities. And each of those universe has evolved very different versions of government agencies and bureaucracies to deal with, and around posthumans." That's uncited original synthesis, and that counts as original research. Now I'm not unfamiliar with comic book universes, I'm sure that intro could be rewritten and referenced appropriately, but that still leaves the problem of this being an indiscriminate collection of trivia. This is fine for a comics wiki, but it's too much detail for WP. Groupthink 22:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  Since you agree the intro could be rewritten, that's not an argument for deletion. If it concerns you, bring it up on the talk page. That would be a valid response. Not deletion. As to indiscriminate...what are you arguing is indiscriminate about it? Seriously, you can't just say "This is indiscriminate" when there's a reasonable definition to what this article constitutes. Fictional Gov't agencies in comics. Seems a limited class to me. Why is it indiscriminate? Now personally, I'd split it by publisher, which would be even more clearly defined. But that's an entirely different issue. As for the details, I consider the level of detail here quite adequate for Wikipedia, but highly inadequate for a database for comics. FrozenPurpleCube 22:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  Regarding point one: I should clarify. Rewriting the intro and supporting it with citations would take care of the OR problem, but the article should still be deleted. Rewriting the intro isn't enough: in theory, this article shouldn't be a list, it should be a topical article called "Government agencies in comic books". The problem is, that wouldn't salvage the article either because the topic isn't notable and is indiscriminate. Which brings me to point two: You're confusing "indiscriminate" with "unrelated". WP is supposed to be discerning about what is and is not included. Articles are supposed to be geared toward the general public, not a certain niche. This list, and this topic in general, is not sufficiently notable, informative or important enough for the masses. Groupthink 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your theory. (Which you haven't articulating, but seems to be "there should be an article expounding on a subject instead of a list"...is that accurate?? If not, please clarify what theory you're advocating). The idea of the kind of page you're supporting would seem to me to be advocating a position as opposed to presenting information. I prefer the later. And I am not confusing indiscriminate with unrelated, you're confusing saying X is so with saying *why* X is so. Please give me a reason why this is indiscriminate. And I'm not the only one asking. And no, I don't consider "This is only important to a certain niche" very conclusive. Exactly how would we determine that? A survey? Personal opinion? Checking search engine results? Sorry, but with these comic books being as popular as they are (which is enough that they've lead to movies, television shows, references books, documentaries etc), I'm willing to say the level of interest is sufficiently high to merit inclusion. If you want to object to "List of Government Agencies in Joe Schmoe's Independent Comic that was never produced in numbers beyond a hundred" that would be one thing. This isn't that. FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something. How is this original research? The article doesn't seem to introduce any new information, or offer an original analysis/interpretation of existing information. This article does neither. In addition, I don't think Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is really applicable here, because the information in question is not indiscriminate, and is not in any way covered by the description given at WP:NOT#INFO. Overall, I really don't see a problem. The article does a pretty good job of organizing the information overall. Granted that multiple comic books tend to exist within the same universe (the DC universe, the Marvel universe, etc.) the information is very closely related, and the list does a good job of listing the government agencies that exist within these universes, providing a reasonable amount of information about each one, including both agencies that have articles and those that do not, so as to make the information easily accessible, but does not get too lengthy, or overly detailed. All in all, this is the sort of thing that lists are supposed to do, and I honestly don't see how the article is unencyclopedic (or original research, for that matter). Calgary 17:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - while sourcing is still a problem and while it would be nice to have some sourced text on the significance of government agencies in comics (superhero comics, actually), the article does a rather good job at providing navigation and possibly development per WP:LIST. --Huon 18:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep Pretty good example of a *whatever* in *whatever* list article. Artw 18:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP is not the sorting place for everything ever mentioned in fiction. List of loosely associated topics/trivial information Corpx 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Response How are the topics loosely associated? In fact, the topics are quite closely connected. This is not a list of fictional government agencies in fiction, this is a list of government agencies in comic books, and as I've said before, because large numbers of comic books published by the same company exist within the same fictional "universe", they could easily be considered as closely connected as a list of government agencies within a single work of fiction, or a single series. And I don't see how it's trivial, because not only are some of these fictional agencies notable in and of themselves, but as a group they have significance and are worthy of inclusion, whereas separately, on an individual basis, many do not. Calgary 20:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. First, let's not forget that "notable" means "notable in the real world", not notable within a given comic publisher's universe. Second, I completely fail to understand your last argument: if some fictional agencies aren't notable on their own, how does aggregating them into a list give them notability? Groupthink 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Exactly. Any and all notability for these organization is completely in the fictional universe. I fail to see why we should categorize anything ever mentioned in fiction. List of fictional hospitals? schools? countries? police stations? fire stations?. This is all trivial details Corpx 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I think the comic publisher's universes are clearly notable (or am I imagining the books, movies, television shows, and documentaries about them??), and that means that Wikipedia should describe them in an adequately comprehensive fashion. Especially since many of the agencies on this page do have their own individual articles. PS: See list of fictional countries. FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please nominate it for deletion and I'll be glad to support. Each and everything that exists/mentioned in a fictional universe is not notable. Corpx 23:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't mean nothing that exists or is mentioned in a fictional universe is notable. FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Response What I'm saying is that even if each individual agency is not notable on their own, they are notable as a collective. While it would be senseless to have an individual article for each of these organization, instead this list provides a means of listing brief information about a group of closely related items, which are notable, but only in the scope of a larger subject. And I do agree with User:FrozenPurpleCube, in that the comic publishers' universes (especially DC and Marvel) have trancended most forms of media, getting to the point where much of these universes is within the scope of the popular consciousness. Now I'm not suggesting we should have an article like List of landmarks in Gotham City (although I think we do). In any case, the Comic publishers' universes are largely a part of popular culture, not just their respective comic serials. In addition, just for comparison, I'd like you to look at List of fictional institutions. Now there is an indiscriminate collection of trivial information. That is an article where most of the items are onlyloosely associated, branching out to all concievable forms of media, where the listings are hopelessly incomplete, and where the actual information is not organized in any way that can make it understandable/accessible to a reader. Now, I know that the existence of one does nothing to justify the existence of the other (saying "worse crap exists" isn't really an argument), but I think it does a very good job of putting things into perspective. Calgary 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I still fail to understand how gathering individual non-notable items into a collection makes that collection notable. Now I do agree with your point that the broader aspects of comic publishers' universes have general notability, but it doesn't follow that all of the minutiae of said universes are thus bestowed with notability. To put it another way: Metropolis (comics) is encyclopedic. "List of streets in Metropolis" is not. Groupthink 23:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• See articles on several of these agencies. See content of this page. If you can make anywhere near that level of content for streets in Metropolis, then we can consider that a reason to have such an article. But given that you probably won't, I'm going to say...why are we bothering to worry about a hypothetical article nobody supports? This is a different article about a different subject. FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The gathering of non-notable things and making a list of them is only suggested for minor characters in a fictional work. Transcending across unrelated works of fiction, picking out non-notable things and making a list is surely not acceptable Corpx 23:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• See, it seems that a List of streets in Metropolis article would have very little content. Lets think of it this way. Metropolis (comics) is encyclopedic. DC universe is encyclopedic. What about List of locations of the DC Universe? This list serves as the organizational point between multiple encyclopedic articles, and in addition, includes some locations that do not have their own articles, simply because such a list would be an appropriate place for such information. Lists are meant to serve organizational/navigational purposes. Both List of government agencies in comics and List of locations of the DC Universe do this, and do a very good job of it. So how are these lists unencyclopedic? And taking into consideration what Corpx said, if we split up the article between universes, and removed information about all organizations that do not have their own articles, wouldthat make the article encyclopedic? Calgary 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The gathering of things though, should indicate that there are accepted ways to aggregate information. Given that many universes have distinct concepts *besides* characters, I hardly consider it inherently unreasonable to consider other things to include besides characters. This would seem to be one of them. FrozenPurpleCube 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything in DC universe is not inherently notable. Any fan of any show/comic would tell you that stuff in their favorite work of fiction is notable and should be expanded, however, one guideline (WP:FICT) applies to them all. Even then, it is one thing to aggregate information found in one work of fiction, but going through unrelated works and aggregating similar things is trivia + loosely related. Corpx 05:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, feel free not to note how many hairs where on Lex Luthor's head, or the name of the man walking his dog that Superman saved with his Bus. Then get back to convincing me why these things aren't notable. Go ahead. FrozenPurpleCube 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove notability. Besides, I'm arguing that these are loosely related per WP:NOT#INFO Corpx 14:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See the articles in question for the first. These are significant in a notable work of fiction. For the latter, no, I don't see they are inherently loosely related. I think the burden is on your to articulate that. FrozenPurpleCube 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Groupthink 19:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that WP:V is applicable here? Artw 20:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the arguments I've already made establishing that WP:V does apply here? Groupthink 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything on the page can be sourced (some of it is already), if there's anything you dispute, try the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of this specific topic (as outlined in the intro graf) has not been sourced. As stated above, the burden is on the inclusionists to establish: 1) That this article is not original research and 2) That this article's specific topic is of sufficient notability to be included in Wikipedia. Tell you what: If you can find even one objective, verifiable secondary source written about "government agencies in comics" then I will immediately withdraw this nomination. Groupthink 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's WP:NOTE, not WP:V. I see no WP:V issues here. Artw 00:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I do, as outlined above. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Groupthink 00:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to adhere to your standard, as it's obvious to me that this article isn't about government agencies in comics, it's about the government agencies in comics. (Can you see the difference??) There is no overall concern about original research here, as there's no inherent theory to the subject. All of these agencies should be citable to the comic(s) they appear in, as well as the various reference works produced for the comic universes. I don't see any on the page that I feel can't be cited, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Now as for notability, the individual comic universes are what's notable. This is an aid to describing them. (Note how several of these agencies do have articles...). Now I'd suggest breaking this up by universe, but that's not really deletion. And it is organized along those lines already, so I don't see it as an immediate need. Sorry, but I just don't find your arguments convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 01:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nor I yours. Groupthink 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep trying and hope to persuade you to the merits of my position. FrozenPurpleCube 03:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You're saying these are notable in the works of fiction. ("These are significant in a notable work of fiction"). The reason to have WP:FICT is so that we can decide whether the things notable in universe have any notability in the real world. Everything significant in a fictional universe is not notable in the real world Corpx 05:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So? I don't requite a topic such as this to have significance in the real world. My position is different. Loosely written it is: Assuming that the work itself merits inclusion, would a proper description of this work include a description of whatever the thing is, be it a character, a creature, a geographical setting, or whatever else. Sorry, but as I see it, you're assuming I agree with your position. I don't. Thus your statements of how it fails to meet your criteria fall flat, since you've not convinced me to agree with them. See the problem? Now why do I have the position I have? Because I feel that a comprehensive description of a fictional work is appropriate so that people can find information on the subject they want. Note, however, I am using the term comprehensive. That is more than minimal but less than exhaustive. In this case, I would consider knowing what these agencies are practically essential to many aspects of the involved fictional works, to a greater or lesser degree. (Shield, Checkmate, IO, the BPRD being examples of the greater. Others being examples of lesser...some to the extent that they might be merged under other agencies. But that's not a deletion concern). This means they fit my comprehensive standard. FrozenPurpleCube 14:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, very loosely associated. All meaningful content is already contained in individual articles, with no important linkage between entries. Violates the base-page rule (i.e, there is no "government agencies in comics" article). --Eyrian 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

So are you accepting that the individual agencies with articles merit them? And I don't think I know what base page rule you're talking about. Could you please inform me what you're talking about? FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed them all. The "base page rule" is derived from the essay Wikipedia:Listcruft. And no, it's not a hard rule, just a good indication that the association is not particularly meaningful, hence the WP:NOT#DIR violation. --Eyrian 23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Then it's not a rule, it's just an essay, which we're free to disregard. Which I will, if only because I consider anything that uses the term "cruft" in it to be uncivil and insulting rather than an appropriate argument as to a position. And unless you care to articulate a reason why it's applicable to this particular circumstance, I'm going to ignore it. Though I suppose you could argue that government agency is the base article if you wished. FrozenPurpleCube 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it violates WP:NOT#DIR. The essay provides guidance on how that determination can be made. In this case, that association is very, very loose. These entries are related to each other only by the thinnest of threads. That makes this list in violation of policy. --Eyrian 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that this article doesn't come close to any of the concepts described under WP:NOT#DIR. Phonebook? No. Genealogical? No. Quotations? No. Aphorisms? No. Sales Catalog? Nope. This is actually a list article that provides substantial descriptive information of everything on it. Exactly what I look for in a list page actually. Especially with all of them meriting coverage to some extent or another, some of them in individual articles. Or don't you think something that appears in nationally available comic books over the course of several decades might merit some coverage? Honestly, do you have an actual argument that is directly pertinent to the subject of this list? Or are you just going to present arguments based on essays *without* applying them directly to the situation? I'm sorry, but that's really not convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it falls neatly under a loose association of topics. There is minimal commonality between these subjects. --Eyrian 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The subjects are all fictional government agencies that exist within a specific comic book universe. The only way in which they are loosely associated is that the article lists more than one universe (I think there are around 6 in the article). Other than that, I don't really see any loose association. For subjects to be "loosely associated" they have to have little in common, making them only connected in a minor or trivial way. As it stands, they are all fictional government agencies that exist within a specific comic book universe. This is the one major thing they have in common. The differentiating factors lie in the specific details of the agencies, and if you ask me the details about what something does is far more trivial than the general description of what something is. Calgary 02:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, a loose association of topics would be something like "list of things which are called Departments" while this is actually fairly specific as to being a list of gov't agencies in comics. It's not like we don't have other lists of Gov't agencies on Wikipedia. The only problem I have with it is that I feel it might be better served by splitting into the subpages. But since it's already *grouped* that way, it's not a great problem. FrozenPurpleCube 04:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And here's another thought. Wikipedia has several lists of actual government agencies, usually grouped by country. Now, these would indeed be more apparently notable, but would a list of government agencies by country be any less loosely associated than a list of fictional government agencies by universe? Calgary 04:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Such government agencies have common funding, follow common laws, are under a common constitution, etc. That aside, yes, there is a fundamental difference. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the factual, not the fictional. Fictional details are given to place the work in context, so that it's real world impact can be understood. --Eyrian 04:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Things in a work of fiction are facts in and of themselves. Real world impact is a not a requirement, but a secondary matter. The primary matter is to accurately describe the elements of the work of fiction itself. FrozenPurpleCube 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. Groupthink 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm afraid I disagree. Sometimes I actually find such things distracting and uninformative. I really don't always want to know what person X thinks of Concept Y. I'd rather know what Concept Y is. This is because I'd rather know what something is, than what other people think of it. This isn't to say such things aren't worth including, but that they are the secondary concern. This also applies to non-fictional material. YMMV. FrozenPurpleCube 01:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you disagree with a policy that has strong and broad consensus. Groupthink 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Luckily consensus can change, and not all things are set in stone. Not that I believe the consensus is particularly broad or strong. FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Tightly associated, sourced list. Nominations like this reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the utility of such lists, and the damage done by deleting them. RandomCritic 02:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. Responses like that reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what is and is not encyclopedic. First off, the utility of a list is irrelevant. The fact that it's well-organized is irrelevant, and the fact that deleting it may or may not "do damage" is irrelevant. The notability of the list's parent topic or topics is irrelevant, and the existence of other similar lists is irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant! (And in case you were wondering, refutations like "it's not a formal policy" are, you guessed it, irrelevant.)

  Secondly, as to the list being "sourced": The intro paragraph, which is the key to the entire list, IS NOT SOURCED. That makes it unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position.

  Thirdly, while "the items in this list are loosely associated" is a valid argument in-and-of-itself for deleting random lists of random things, "the items in this list are tightly associated" is NOT a valid argument in-and-of-itself for keeping a list. I've had a yen to to create a "List of songs which reference the song's performer" and a "List of songs which reference other musical performers", but I haven't, because we're supposed to be discriminating with what is or is not included... and criteria for said discrimination are not limited to the six specific items listed in WP:NOT#INFO! That's a ridiculous narrow constraint of a general policy.

  Finally, no one has addressed my main point, which is that this specific list's topic is trivial, by which I mean that there are insufficient sources to establish that the general reader of this general encyclopedia will find this specific article to be notable. Y'all missed the point I was making with the "Metropolis" example. My assertion had nothing to do with amount of content. The point I was trying to make is that "Streets in Metropolis" is far less notable than either "Streets" or "Metropolis"... just like "government agencies in comics" is far less notable than either "government agencies" or "comics". Groupthink 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  Repeating that good arguments against deleting an argument are "irrelevant" (based on their being mentioned in a highly contentious essay) is not actually arguing anything, but rather avoiding the argument. If one accepted that at face value, then any proposed deletion would be a priori unassailable, as there would be no functional arguments against it -- in fact, to carry it to its logical conclusion, there should be nothing on Wikipedia at all.

  "Contentious" essay? If it's so contentious, why isn't it marked as such, and why does it have numerous "WP:" links to it? You're reasoning from a faulty premise there: the point of that essay is to provide guidelines for refuting BAD arguments, which is exactly what I did. Groupthink 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  You really think that having a "WP:" link makes it "official"? Perhaps you missed the bit at the top which says "THIS IS NOT POLICY"? Essays aren't usually marked as NPOV or whatever because, you know, they are essays and that kind of goes without saying. Evidence of the controversiality of the content can be found in the Talk page. In fact the essay too easily dismisses a lot of good arguments as "bad". In fact the argument from utility ought to be the best argument anybody has; any written policy should be subordinate to the question of what is best for Wikipedia, what makes it most accessible and useful as an information source. Policy should exist to realize that goal; the goal should not take a back seat to policy.RandomCritic 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  Your first point is a straw-man argument: I never said that that essay was "official" policy, just that it carried weight. As to your "utility trumps all" philosophy: It is explicit WP policy that WP is not supposed to have universal and ubiquitous utility. Both sides of this debate are "arguing from utility" here: The question pending is whether the inclusion or the exclusion of this article makes this encyclopedia more useful. You say tomato, I say tomahto. Groupthink 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  The fact is that Wikipedia policy is shaped by Wikipedia editors. What that policy is can be determined to a great extent by precedent. If one editor, or a handful of editors, get it into their heads that something is "the real policy", and run around trying to backdoor legislate it despite the agreement of the generality of Wikipedia editors that it's not policy, or an appropriate interpretation of policy, then they can run around causing a lot of trouble and headaches for those editors who just want to get on with the job of making Wikipedia better. To make one erroneous deletion proposal is forgivable. To keep making them over and over again, in spite of rejections, based on a righteous theory that your view is the only correct one, is contrary to the spirit of collegiality that should prevail in Wikipedia. I understand that there are editing fads and fashions, as with other things, but at some point someone has to say: this has gone on long enough. Quit it!RandomCritic 07:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  Boy, talk about not actually arguing anything, or responding to arguments posed. An ad hominem attack like that is the last refuge of those that cannot or will not respond to valid questions raised. You imply that I'm being "righteous", that my deletion proposal is "erroneous", that I think my "view is the only correct one" (despite the fact that I have repeatedly cited policies and guidelines which are consented to broadly); you suggest that I'm acting "contrary to the spirit of collegiality that (sic) should prevail in Wikipedia"; then you conclude with "Quit it!"??? I'm floored. Groupthink 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  Nothing except, of course, topics with independent analysis on the particular subject. A chilling thought. Deleting articles without sources will, I'm afraid, never go out of style. --Eyrian 07:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  Which is an unfortunate thing, since many times there are existing sources that anybody could find if they bothered to look. FrozenPurpleCube 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Unfortunately, some people do not seem to realize that Wikipedia is a unique encyclopedia that greatly differs from other online encyclopedias in that anyone can contribute to Wikipedia and everyone is a volunteer. The only reason other encyclopedias aren't as large as Wikipedia is because they don't have enough resources to make it as large, and they only want hired professionals writing their articles. As such, Wikipedia has an almost unlimited amount of space for such articles as this, so it should not be deleted. Also, think: what good would come out of deleting this?--ElminsterAumar 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  I realize you're not supposed to just throw out direct-links, but I'm getting tired of rewording the same refutations over and over. So: WP:NOHARM. WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. WP:LOSE. Groupthink 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  ...and your reasoning is? Groupthink 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it's because I'm more convincing than you. But hey, if you want to object to people just agreeing with another, you'd better start up at the top. JUSTAVOTE, however, as clearly shown, is merely for those who simply say "Keep" or "Delete" without even a pretense of an explanation. FrozenPurpleCube 01:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and "I agree with ____" without a "because" lacks said pretense (see also WP:PERNOM). As for how convincing you are: I frankly don't care. This isn't a candidate's debate: this is about getting things RIGHT. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I'm here to make Wikipedia better, and the only person I'm worried about convincing is the closing admin for this discussion. Groupthink 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to look at WP:PERNOM again. Or the discussion on the talk page about it. It's not actually considered universally repellent. Anwyay, this is about getting things right. So far as I'm concerned it's not making Wikipedia better by deleting this page. Splitting? Maybe. Deleting? Nope. I certainly haven't seen you make an argument as to why Wikipedia will be better with this page removed, as I see it, you've primarily relied on claims that we must follow existing policies and guidelines without regards to the application. I'm sorry, but that's not convincing. Furthermore, if all you're worried about is convincing one admin, you're mistaken in your goals. This isn't about convincing one admin, but convincing other users. The meaning of consensus is not finding one person with the keys who agrees with you. FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I noticed that some canvassing has occurred [59] and I must strongly advise everybody to not try to sway the discussion by seeking out the input of other editors in a non-neutral fashion. If you do feel that others should be notified, it is important to do so in a way that is completely above-board and not designed to just get those who might support your argument to participate. This applies to all sides of the discussion. Thanks in advance for respecting this concern! FrozenPurpleCube 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  Oh puh-leez. "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion." I made one off-hand comment on a fellow user's talk page. I complimented the input he/she has made in the past. While I did mention MY opinion on this subject, I did not ask for her/him to back me up. I love how you feel free to disregard WP consensus policy willy-nilly except when it suits your purposes. Groupthink 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I feel free to disagree with policy when I consider the policy to be in error. You're welcome to disagree as well, but you should at least have sound reasons for it. I don't feel you could have any sound reasoning for seeking out selected individuals for their participation in a discussion such as this. Seeking out individuals to develop consensus is not open, or neutral, but rather something of a clique. There are appropriate ways to do it, but you didn't choose one of them. FrozenPurpleCube 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it was ONE SELECTED INDIVIDUAL, not "selected individuals", and I had a perfectly sound reason to comment on TenPoundHammer's talk page: I respect her/his opinions. Not only did I not solicit a supporting opinoin, I didn't even ask Hammer to comment here. I have to say I thoroughly resent the inappropriate choices that YOU'VE made here on this page. Rather than refute my arguments, you've engaged in ad hominem denigration, and I ask you to please stop immediately. Groupthink 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you selected an individual. This is still bad form. You can quibble over whether or not you actually intended for TPH to comment here, but given that your comment was seconding a person who explicitly did make the request for a comment on another AFD (Said person having apologized for that mistake), I'm not inclined to consider your explanation exculpatory. Sorry. If you do have some problem with my actions, feel free to bring them up in the appropriate venue. FrozenPurpleCube 17:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I do have a problem with your actions, so I will bring it up in the appropriate venue: this venue. The problem I have is that you've dismissed every relevant policy I've brought up here with a wave of your hand and an "Well, I don't think that's a good policy, so I'm free to ignore it." Yet you feel free to irrelevantly accuse me of canvassing in the name of policy.

"Ignore all rules" does not mean "ignore all rules arbitrarily," it means "don't let the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia." Similarly, "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy," does not mean that everyone can disregard policy on a whim. Now, I've laid out my reasoning as to why I think removing this article would improve Wikipedia, and you've laid out your arguments contrariwise. You strike me as an editor who always has to get in the last word, so I'm guessing that you're not going to drop this, but at this point, I see no further point in continuing any dialogue with you, so I'm done. Groupthink 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, none of the discussion at this point has anything to do with the article, but rather your actions regarding this process. These are quite different. And I consider it quite relevant to note your actions, because I do feel that seeking out individuals, even if it's just one, for their specific input, in a deletion discussion, is a problem in regards to swaying consensus. If you disagree, fine, but I don't think any of your comments reflect that instead focusing on trying to say how you didn't actually canvass because it was just one person and you didn't really ask them to comment here. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't see that as exculpatory. Instead, I feel that it's a rather preposterous bit of trying to use a narrow interpretation of the language to excuse yourself. BTW, I always felt that people who really want the last word are the first to complain that others want to have it. Me, I'd just rather not mention it. FrozenPurpleCube 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's entirely fair to call that canvassing (though I don't think it's entirely fair to call those taht want the article kept 'fanboys' as if it was some crappy cruft list, but that's beside the point ). If canvassing is a concern then possibly the afd-for-beginners template should be added? Though I suspect groupthink is well away that it's not a ballot. Artw 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is minimal enough canvassing that I'm not concerned enough to take further action other than to ask people not to do it (note how I didn't add the template), but any time you contact other users to participate in a discussion, it should be completely above-board and done in the most neutral of terms. Seeking out an uninvolved individual for input in an AFD is not neutral enough for that. Contact the creator? Sure, that's valid. In that case, it's even ok to ask them to say why they might want it kept. Make a note on a wikiproject or other noticeboard? Go ahead, but if you do, it's important to be as neutral as possible. Give a note to everybody who participated in a past discussion? Also reasonable. But don't message selected people, even if it's just one person. That's just bad form. Adding in that it's a support for a uncivil comment in itself, and well, it's not good. FrozenPurpleCube 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem with you taking "further action". As you yourself said on your talk page, "I'm interested in any Wikipedia policy whose application I agree with," but you feel free to violate any policy whose application you disagree with. In other words, you do whatever you feel like without regard to consensus (except, of course, when it benefits your POV). I'm sorry, but that's hypocritical cherry-picking. If you want to notify an admin, be my guest. Otherwise, please stick to the subject at hand. Groupthink 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to take further action at this time, and I hope you recognize that you shouln't engage in canvassing. As for the rest, I suggest you consider that policy is not something always something set in stone, but something that needs to be examined, and there are times we might have a bad policy. Certainly policies do change, and some should change. You can call it hypocritical cherry-picking if you like, but I call it common sense. Rules don't exist to be followed simply because they are rules. Rules are to be followed when they are appropriate to the circumstances. You may wish to read WP:IAR and WP:BURO for more consideration of the subject.

I've added the not-a-ballot termplate. I suggest that if either of you wish to discuss this further you do it via userpages Artw 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think a simple notification was enough, but oh well. I would discuss this further, but I'm not sure that the involved editor would listen to my input. Perhaps Groupthink should seek out opinions from others instead. FrozenPurpleCube 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom and Evb-wiki. Sarvagnya 05:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't criteria for speedy deletion. And just an observation, considering how long this discussion has been going on (several days), I don't think a "speedy deletion" could be considered very speedy at all. Calgary 05:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy? WTF? What Calgary said. Artw 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, yeah, definitely does not meet CSD... Groupthink 05:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted by User:Eyrian - Corpx 08:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pe0n

Pe0n (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a 1337 dictionary. Deprodded. Weregerbil 16:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This entry isn't much different than these: Noob, 1337, Ownage, Owned, Phreak, LOL, Headshot, Lamer etc. Radical-Dreamer 17:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And WP:SIG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to peon. Groupthink 16:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing more than a dictionary-style definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a slang dictionary, or, indeed, a 1337 dictionary. I don't think a redirect to peon would be a good idea, because in this case "peon" and "pe0n" have entirely different meanings. *Possibly merge to List of internet slang phrases. Calgary 16:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Peon does contain the definition of "pe0n" in a subsection. Groupthink 22:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - per above - notable but empty. Onnaghar ^{tl ! co} 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Calgary. WP:NOT#DICT. As it is currently written, this article would seem to have qualified for speedy deletion by A5: "Any article that either consists only of a dictionary definition, or that has been discussed at Articles for deletion with an outcome to move it to another wiki, after it has been properly moved and the author information recorded." It may have a home in the List of internet slang phrases, but not as a stand-alone article. --Moonriddengirl 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note A user (this article's author) has added the content of the article to List of internet slang phrases. Calgary 19:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clearly failing WP:NEO - Tagged for CSD with db-nonsense Corpx 19:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-Notable, and Empty. -Flubeca^Talk 20:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No need to l33t articles, even for redirects. comment added by DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 10:00, June 10, 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Erm... Am I missing something or is this just a redirect? Surely this should be at TfD, not here; in which case this should be delisted and taken to the correct place. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 03:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It was an article at the time this AfD was started, but it was speedily deleted during the AfD and then recreated. Weregerbil 07:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Facebook, given that it has been pointed out that much of the content here is also in that article. Feel free to merge any additional content necessary. --Coredesat 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ConnectU

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

Procedural nomination to fix a malformed AfD ElKevbo 16:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

-From the discussion page-
This article should be deleted since the website ConnectU is not a known project. Its rating is very low and this website is only known because of its connection with Facebook. As we may see from the reference section that it only lists articles about lawsuits by ConnectU against Facebook and in my opinion that is not enough. The website must have a notability of its own and I think this is not the case with ConnectU. Northern 11:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ConnectU is in fact a notable and known project. Its development of a university-wide social network specific to school institutions was the first of its kind. It is also inextricably linked to and a catalyst for web 2.0, niche social networks, and Facebook.

What is grounds for inclusion into Wikipedia is not the relative success or rank of a given website or company, which is of course in the case of ConnectU clouded by allegations of missapropriation, but rather the relative impact and notability of that said entity. comment added by Ashellray (talk • contribs) 22:08, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Facebook (although much of it already appears to be in that article). --ElKevbo 16:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep plenty of coverage found. Do NOT merge into facebook. They're 2 separate competing entities Corpx 19:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of that coverage either seems to focus on the lawsuit or a quick mention of ConnectU as part of a roundup of social networking sites (and even those articles seem to focus much more on Facebook). --ElKevbo 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep great importance as a precursor , in its own right. That is led to something else, does not make it less notable. Ashellray has it right. DGG (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article has hardly any information about the website. --Heero Kirashami 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This website can not be notable for one small reason: its Alexa rating is 81,253 which is VERY low. My website which I never advertised or promoted was like 300,000 so anything around 100,000 can't be notable.
  

And as already stated by me and the other person, all references about this website (or at least the ones that were included) are only about the lawsuit. It is a website, and therefore if it's not a known website, it can't have an article on Wikipedia. Just because the creator of the website filled a lawsuit does not make this website famous. Why don't we write about each and every person who sued myspace, then?
Again, this website's ONLY fame is through Facebook.
Northern 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge any notable resulting controversy from the suit at Facebook. Italia^vivi 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and tell Winklevoss ScrewU for suing facebook.--66.28.244.143 20:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 03:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of renamed products

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

Very difficult to maintain such a list; hopelessly un-useful as a reference. In todays global economy, products are often marketed with different names in different countries, inherently renaming them. All but completely unreferenced. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Mikeblas 15:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Not unmaintainable... product names do not change from day to day, and tracking of name changes is notable. Usually, there's a reason why a name has been changed for a product. This is a concise way of recording transition in consumer marketing. Mandsford 20:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a list of loosely associated topics. The items on the list have no relation to each other except for the fact that they incurred a name change Corpx 19:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, valuable as a navigation tool, but consider name change. Most are companies or services, not products. "No relation to each other except for the fact that they X" is the definition of any list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The question is whether what defines the list is sufficiently significant or fundamental to the nature of the items on the list. In this case I think not. Wikipedia is not a directory -- directories are too hard to maintain. This article invites every tiny little non-notable product with a name change to advertise itself. --Coppertwig 23:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Correction of disuseage of above comments, remove non-notable and unimportant. Roded86400 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shivani kapoor

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

Asserts notability but does not provide any references or sources for verification. Looks suspiciously like a vanity bio WebHamster 15:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article could use work, but I did some googling and turned up a fair number of sources about her. I've added a few of them to the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I read them. A couple of "gossip" type articles. The film she is supposed to be in barely rates an empty template on Imdb, she doesn't even get an entry. The references you cited mostly point out that her fame is based on whoever she's dating at any particular time. Hardly credible sources for notability (which isn't the same as fame or notoriety}. WebHamster 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom. I tagged it for speedy, which was denied based on the award won. I also searched for and added one reference. None of the sources I came across was hugely reliable, and her "accomplishments" are not that great, . . . yet? Fails WP:BIO in my book. --Evb-wiki 16:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Quite notable in Indian modeling circles. [60]. utcursch | talk 13:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know much about Indian models and even I've heard of her name. Lots of references added since nomination. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nokia products

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

List of non-notable products. Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article adds little value and is unencyclopedic in addition to being unreferenced. Mikeblas 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Recently, Wikipedia made the news because of its increasing use as a corporate vehicle (ex., International Herald-Tribune, "Corporate editing of Wikipedia revealed", www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/19/business/wiki.php ). You kind of have to wonder who would create a Wikipedia article about all the models of Nokia phones that have ever been made. An obsessed cellular fan? Perhaps. I think this one comes straight from the public relations branch. Mandsford 16:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article is neither filled with non-notable products nor is it indiscriminate information. It is extremely valueable as it presents a complete list of Nokia products with additional information in sortable lists allowing for comparison. Lists such as these replace having an encyclopedic article for every product. However, The article does need referencing and some clean-up. I also do not understand nominating this article again. Looking at the old AFD, the consensus was overwhelmingly "Keep". Rwhealey 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Most of the products are cell phones. They're not notable; the industry is completely saturated with them and these are not innovative or ground-breaking examples. Other products listed include ADSL modems, which are completely pedestrian. The encyclopedic articles you refer to are largely unreferenced, read like adverts, include trivia sections, and are mostly orphans. -- Mikeblas 01:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For the reasons expressed above, and due to several of the phones named having their own articles. As this list offers more than just a directory of models, but rather other relevant information, it's better than a category. FrozenPurpleCube 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Wikipedia is not a directory. Lack of evidence of notability. --Coppertwig 23:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep – This is a useful and informative list. I've used it many times for phone research. It just needs to be cleaned up and de-redlinked. —TigerK 69 18:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - Non-notable products? The article links to over a hundred different articles on Nokia-products. If you think they are non-notable, you should start the discussion on those articles. -- Petri Krohn 03:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have, not that it's relevant. Please note WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Mikeblas 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think it's disingenuous to cite WP:OTHERSTUFF here - Petri Krohn was referring to the content of the article, and not saying 'but 'List of Samsung products' was kept. Wibbble 14:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - survived 2005 deletion vote, should survive this one too. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. 1. non-notable products (WP:NN) - to argue this, I think you would have to argue against the existence of the linked articles about each phone and series. If they exist, this list is useful, and much better than a Category. 2. not a directory - None of WP:NOT#DIR apply (1 - these topics are clearly not loosely associated; 2 - not genealogical or phonebook; 3/4 are aimed at avoiding promotional material, whereas this is archival). Similarly 3 - It is hardly indiscriminate (WP:NOT#INFO). Personally, I have just this week found this article a very useful resource after starting work at phone-related company - finding information and comparisons on non-current models is not as easy as it might be. (You may take that as a declaration of interest if you wish, but I've also found it useful before) That said, I agree with comment here and in the previous AfD (and in Talk) that the page needs cleaning up. (Aside: the revision history suggests that you proposed this before reading the previous AfD debate, and I don't feel that this AfD adds anything new) - Royan 10:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While I wonder if we really need an article on every cellphone in existence, this is no more a directory than List of Google products, List of IBM products, Amiga models and variants, List of Intel microprocessors, or List of Microsoft Windows versions. And if by "directory" you mean "repository of information", then every article fails WP:NOT#DIR. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Brand_name_products says "Minor products from a company should be merged into a 'list of minor products from this company' which is kept in the company article, unless it becomes too large as above." This list appears too large for the Nokia article. I'm wary of Wikipedia being used for marketing, but I don't think this article reads like an advertisement. Words like "ground-breaking" and "pedestrian" are highly opinionated though. If there are many articles on this list, it may even be wise to merge that information into this list instead of having a separate article on each and every cellphone. --Pixelface 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Royan and Pixelface. This is neither a directory nor indiscriminate collection of information. It is a list of products, many of which are themselves notable, manufactured by a notable company, and serves as an index to encyclopedic articles, as well as being informative in itself, with copious annotation, about the types of products this company has offered in the past as well as what it offers now. Any products or product lines which are not particularly notable or don't have any information which can be sourced to reliable sources could be removed from the list, but this would still leave a valid list of many notable and significant ones. Articles which can be improved should not be deleted (see WP:RUBBISH). DHowell 05:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Same reasoning as for AfD of Motorola products. See there for detailed argument. Highlights include: Compliant with WP:LIST; provides information beyond a category; provides structure and navigation; clear inclusion criteria. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of products manufactured by ASUS

List of products manufactured by ASUS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Uncited list of non-notable products. WP is not an arbitrary collection of information, and WP is not a directory. Mikeblas 15:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Oli Filth 16:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This list of info is a little spammy. --Evb-wiki 16:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with nom that this list is simply an indiscriminate list of infromation, unlike the above nominated Nokia list.Rwhealey 17:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because we're not a directory of ASUS products Corpx 19:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. spazure (contribs) (review) 05:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I assume one can find mention of each of these products within the links in the External links section. I don't think Wikipedia should be used for marketing, but I see no language in this article to indicate it's an advertisement. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Brand_name_products says "Minor products from a company should be merged into a 'list of minor products from this company' which is kept in the company article, unless it becomes too large as above." Wikipedia has many lists of products[61]. Is the nominator assuming that all lists on Wikipedia are directories? WP:N pertains to the suitability of article topics but does not directly limit the content of articles. While each product in the list may not be notable enough to merit it's own article, it would fit fine on a list. --Pixelface 04:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Pixelface. This is neither a directory nor indiscriminate collection of information. It is a list of products manufactured by a notable company. It could use some sourcing, but this shouldn't be a problem, as there are plenty of reliable sources to be found, for example, about their motherboards in newspapers and books. DHowell 06:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Compliant with WP:LIST. Provides information beyond a category; provides structure and navigation; clear inclusion criteria. Deletion policy/Brand name products seems to indicate that consensus is that lists of products are acceptable. If we want to change that (and maybe we should), start there, not by AfD'ing selected lists. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The issue raised by this article's nomination at AfD was the lack of independent citable sources. At no point in this debate have I seen the opposition saying they have reliable third party sources. Please remember that AfD is not a vote, which means I discounted many of the ILIKEIT votes. The primary argument for deletion was the lack of sources, and the community replied with poor rationales for keeping. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I can restore to userspace if the information needs merging elsewhere, which seemed to be raised as an issue as well. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Akatsuki members

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

Wikipedia articles should be compiled from information that is independent of the topic. The information in this list is from the topic itself, namely from the pages of the Naruto manga print cartoon. If no third-party reliable source cared enough to publish this information, why should Wikipedia? Wikipedia:Notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject, including the Naruto manga series. The topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. In addition, the article also fails as a list, such as not including unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources per Criteria for inclusion in lists. An AfD that links to "List of Akatsuki members" and appears relevant to this discussion is Akatsuki leader AfD -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:09, 25 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}}

• Merge I'd say to merge the list of the Akatsuki members, and if necessary allow for their own personal pages. SonicMobius 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Naruto is notable. This is an aspect of a reasonably notable part of the show, the Akatsuki, and is a case of inherited notability through the logical concept that describing the members of an organization is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If you wish to argue for the deletion of this page, you must first show that the Akatsuki don't merit an article. FrozenPurpleCube 15:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  Importance or significance of the topic addresses whether it should be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Wikipedia:Notability addresses whether there is enough source material that is independent of the topic to develop an article on that topic. In this case, there is not enough independent source material. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  CSD A7 is inapplicable here. Note how it says *real* ? Besides, there doesn't have to be independent source material for all things, especially not stuff that arises out of a work of fiction. Why? Because Luke Skywalker saying he's a Jedi knight is something we can attribute to the work itself. If you really want independent sources [62] may be what you want. If it's not, feel free to look for others. FrozenPurpleCube 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Notability is not inherited. --Phirazo 15:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability CAN be inherited, as in the case of a sub-article of a larger subject. This is exactly that. Get back to me when you're not just dumping a wikilink but are actually considering applying an argument applicable to the subject at hand. Or at least, looking at the argument you're linking to, which actually covers this issue. Or did you not notice? FrozenPurpleCube 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Notablility is never inherited. There is no such thing as a "sub-article". Articles must be able to stand alone on thier merits. As the article I linked says, "If it really is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that." --Phirazo 19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As the essay you linked also says "Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes," which is clearly the point of this list. Do you have an argument as to why the membership of this organization shouldn't be covered in some form on Wikipedia? FrozenPurpleCube 23:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the membership should be covered - in a list of just names in Akatsuki (Naruto), not in a stand-alone article. There is no reason it should be covered in this depth when there are no reliable secondary sources about any of this. --Phirazo 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to suggest a shallower depth, however, given that there *is* information about the members of the Akatsuku, I think it's hardly unreasonable to say that more should be provided than just a list of names. That would be removing content for no good reason. If you want to go with the decision below to merge the article back up, I'm not opposed to the idea, it might work. FrozenPurpleCube 03:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The section is notable as the Akatsuki is notable. The reason for the list was to pretty much shorten the artcle and rework the main Akatsuki page with an out of universe fashion.--TheUltimate3 15:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per directly above reason. Mr. Brigg's Ink 17:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -As Ultimate 3 said,it is notable and used to be part of a larger article but was removed for space issues.Lastbetrayal 17:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Nominator claims that the List of Akatsuki Members had no third party source. If that were to determine the article deletion, most of Naruto related articles would be deleted. (Example). I feel that, the no third party reference alone does not give a enough reason to delete. Also if this is deleted, all the information would be merged into the Akatsuki page which would equal around 50 KB. While not incredibly high, it is better to keep it as it is. -ScotchMB 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment List of Metal Gear Solid characters and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, two featured lists that should be a model for other articles hoping to reach FL status, are predominately sourced directly from the games they are about or from those who are connected with the games (creators, fan sites, etc.) While they each have a handful of third party sources, the fact remains that the majority of their content has not been covered by "reliable" bodies. Should they be deleted too? Should they be considered crap that exists in other places, and therefore allowed no relevance to this article's deletion discussion? ~SnapperTo 18:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is a FA, not a list, and is significantly different from List of Metal Gear Solid characters. The former covers the characters as a whole rather than the characters themselves, while the latter is actually a list. Both, however, are indeed excellent templates for such articles. The essential problem here is that there has been little to no third party publications concerning the Akatsuki members, especially considering that many of them have been recently introduced. There also has been hardly any reception that I have seen save the popularity polls that are included in the article, which by themselves do not constitute notability. Furthermore, the creator of these characters, Kishimoto, has released little to no information on the design or conception of these characters. As such, this article ultimately cannot pass WP:FICT. The aforementioned two articles do due to the presence of the above information, and it is thus suitable for them to have their own articles. For this article, we cannot bank on future notability (WP:CRYSTAL), nor make our own conclusions from available information (WP:NOR). If I am incorrect, and such information does exist, then this article should definitely be cleaned up and written in an out-of-universe tone as per WP:WAF with the relevant information. As it is now, however, a deletion or merger would be proper. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment That would explain why it wasn't included in the list of featured lists, though its structure is still very similar to that of a generic list of characters (conception and reception excluded). The purpose of my comment, however, was to refute the nom's claims that an article must be drenched in third-party sources to be considered Wikipedia-worthy; I am well aware of this article's other faults. As such, I'm working on recombining this article with Akatsuki (Naruto), condensing the information to the bare-essentials, putting an out-of-universe spin on it, and actually sourcing the information. Once that's done I'll see what can be found in terms of third-party stuff. ~SnapperTo 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for every reason stated and that losing this page and merging it to the main akatsuki page would make the main article much too long and force some members to be made into articles, something I'm trying to move away from. If the nominator can't come back with any new reasons to this article's deletion then i think this disscussion will end rather quickly.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 18:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely notable. They are very important characters in the series. Belgium EO 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SUMMARY does not excuse an article that is almost entirely a plot summary. Place a short list (names only) in Akatsuki (Naruto), and be done with it. --Phirazo 19:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• comment The articles mentioned by Snapper also have plot summery. Do you plan to delete those after you through here?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If an article is entirely plot summary, it needs to go. --Phirazo 22:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all this into List of characters in _______. I'm strongly opposed to giving game guide level coverage to fictional works. This is all completely in universe content and only a List of characters in ______ is appropriate Corpx 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP! If we lose this, it will make everything less encyclopedic. Jazz Band Member 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC) — Jazz Band Member (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment But considering how large the Naruto cast is, its easier and dare I say more encyclopediac to sort them out accordingly.--TheUltimate3 19:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep They're not their own articles, so I'm happy. List of Characters, done properly, are beneficial. This one could use some formatting and trimming, but it's ok. i ^said 20:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Please, stop brandishing your guidelines like the deadly encyclopedic weapons they are not. Other than that, there's essentially no reason this article should be deleted - particularly noting it has already been condensed to a list and acts as a sub-article "for formatting and display purposes". Would you accordingly go about deleting all the plot summaries and character biographies of other articles as well? Then think before you apply. 76.10.151.209 23:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Refer to WP:IAR. This policy clearly shows that we gotta ignore all the rules to improve the standard of Wikpedia, particularly the Naruto articles. After all, this is an encyclopaedia to inform others, not to be a 'rulebook'. Omghgomg 04:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How do plot summaries unreferenced outside the primary source make Wikipedia a better encylopedia? If you are going to invoke WP:IAR, you need to explain how it makes the encylopedia better. --Phirazo 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, I guess that the article inform members of the audience that how these characters influence the continuing plotline of Naruto. Hope that made sense. If not, leave a comment and I'll try to explain it a bit more. =) Omghgomg 07:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If we don't have a list of members then we don't need the organization. If we don't have the organization that drives the series, then we don't even need the series, and if we don't have articles about everything possible for anyone to be informed about any possible thing then we are communists. How are we communists? We would be communists because a free encyclopedia with free articles except some are more free/equal than others doesn't sound communist to you then you must be a hippie. Now that the pun is out of the way, the wikipedian policy for controversial mergers/deletions is for supermajority to take over. In order for this article to be deleted, 60%-80% need to agree on deletion. so far we have 15 people, 12 keep, 2 deletions, and 1 merge. 13.3% agree to deletion which is hardly enough to warant a deletion. [Too lazy to loggin-Kasokaix]--172.129.101.84 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC) — 172.129.101.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  Recall that Wikipedia is not a democracy. To determine consensus, administrators do not (or should not rather) count votes to determine what consensus is. To be frank, no argument has really refuted Jreferee's argument thus far, and as it stands, those are proper grounds for deletion. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  Ahem, I refute, or at least dispute, his claims. There are plenty of books on Naruto. The show itself is absolutely notable. It stands to reason that if the Akatsuki is significant within Naruto (not being disputed here so far as I can tell), then its members can be identified, perhaps through some of those existing books. I noted one above. And that even assumes that somehow one is required to seek third-party sources. I feel the actual work of fiction is quite adequate for many things, including being the source of a lot of information. Do we need a third-party source to tell us Luke Skywalker became a Jedi? That his father was Anakin Skywalker who became Darth Vader? No, we don't. Do we need one to tell us that Luke's Lightsaber was green? Vader's was red? Nope. Now a third-party source that describes his story as being a version of Jesus Christ, yes, or Campbell's Hero's Journey. But those are secondary concerns that fall far short of the purpose of an article on Luke Skywalker. Which is to tell us who *he* is. Not what other people think he is. A similar principle applies here. Anyway, while you may not agree with the positions here, any admin who didn't look at it, and see the potential support existing here would be well-advised to consider whether consensus is in support of the nominator or not. I don't see very much of it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  I never said that the show itself could not provide sources to supplement the article. By all means, such references are ultimately necessary. However, if the only verifiable sources that the article has are the source material itself, then it fails Wikipedia's notability guideline. And yes, a majority is indeed in favor of keeping it right now. However, many of them have no argument beyond "these characters are important" or that it makes Wikipedia less "encyclopedic," and I'm referring to those arguments that should be disregarded by a closing administrator. After reviewing the deletion policy concerning minor characters, however, such treatment in a list is preferable to them having multiple articles. Keep or merge into Akatsuki (Naruto). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  The closer of this MfD should follow Deciding whether to delete. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This anime has run hundreds of epidodes with hundreds of characters. To amalgamate them would be ignoring the need to create a easily viewed article. Delete them if they get their own articles, but as a list, it is inconvenient to have them elsewhere MagiMika 11:46 26 August 2007 (GMT) — MagiMika (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge - The Akatsuki play a major role in Naruto, as do hollows and shinigami in Bleach. Since the members, excluding Itachi Uchiha, are not notable enough to warrant their own articles, we made a list for them. Merging them into a list of villains in the series might be considered reasonable, but deleted it is simply ludicrous. // DecaimientoPoético 15:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per standing deletion policy about minor character, which is still in effect. Though whether the characters are minor or major is arguable, the articles does follow deletion policy as far as the treatment of minor characters is concerned. --Farix (Talk) 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete important though the main topic may be, this much attention to the details of individual characters careers would be appropriate only for the really major characters of the story. I admit I don't know the series, but if I understand the article right, this entire list is only one of the story lines. Considering that one of them is called "unnamed member," I rather doubt the importance of them all. Possibly include them all in the article for the clan, if that is the right term. DGG (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment They're basically the main antagonists of the whole series. The Splendiferous Gegiford 18:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In order to have the series of articles about Naruto make sense as a whole, you need to have this one. 18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.225.122.253 (talk)
• DELETE The akatsuki stated they didn't need wikipedia, so wikipedia doesn't need them. Wikipedia is not a democracy we can delete the character page if we want-TheNarutoKing -- 67.140.54.49 (talk • contribs • logs) 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC). KEEP chicolambre other wise known as Uzumaiki Naruto Keep the akaski character page! 67.140.54.49 (talk • contribs • logs) 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC). KEEP DO NOT DELETE! 67.140.54.49 (talk • contribs • logs) 14:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC). Delete I have to agree with the minority. Do the akatsuki really need a member's page? No, ecspecially since some of the Konoha nine don't have their own pages. Just mention them in the main article. 67.140.54.49 (talk • contribs • logs) 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC) — 67.140.54.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment The above was added by one anon, in two places in the AfD. This might be vandalism, but I'll leave it in anyway. --Phirazo 19:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment The two deletes featured above were made by the same anon after a few attempts to alter the comments of others. ~SnapperTo 20:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment The Akatsuki stated they didn't need wiki? That makes it sound like the Akatsuki members actually said that. Jazz Band Member 20:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment 67.140.54.49 has been blocked to allow this AfD to proceed unvandalized. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it, yo Some of us need like, information about the characters and stuff. There'd be no Naruto without the Akatsuki. 24.161.46.132 22:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)MalfunctioningMalfoy — 24.161.46.132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Akatsuki are the main focus of Shippuden/Part 2 and continue to be the main focus. Each of their dead members has left some sort of lasting impression on the Naruto world as a whole. I think its an extreme disservice to what they mean to Naruto to relegate them to a page full of other villains. I can see merging this back with the Akatsuki organization page, but the members should not be merged with other villains. -- 66.229.88.52 22:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC) — 66.229.88.52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Seeing as this doesn't help my arguement at Itachi's page I have to say that I know knowing the story doesn't help but if the nominators and the fellow deleters should read up on the story of the manga to understand that these aren't minor characters as many seem to think they are.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 00:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  I hardly think that most (if any) of the Akatsuki members are major characters. Major character implies that they have received significant coverage by the source material for a large period of time (or perhaps its entire continuity). Many of the Rookie Nine have received much more coverage than many of the Akatsuki members, and are understood to be minor characters. Akatsuki as a whole is considered major rather than the individual members that compromise it. The members thus far are featured prominently for a short period and subsequently dropped, or otherwise fade into obscurity. Itachi is the only one that really goes somewhat beyond this, but that is questionable. Yes, the individual members could receive much more coverage in the future, but we're not here to speculate on that. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  But the Akatsuki members are the main evil dudes, and that makes them at least major. Jazz Band Member 11:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  Like I said, the organization as a whole is notable. The individual members (excluding the current dispute over Itachi Uchiha) are minor. Merging is appropriate into the main article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  Sasori and Deidara did more and have more backstory than most of the Rookie 9. Kakuzu and Hidan didn't but they encompassed one of the largest, if not the largest arc in the series. If all the Konoha Teams can be placed in their own page, I don't see why the Akatsuki members can't get their own or just be merged back with the organization page. After all, the Akatsuki is nothing without the members and thus I don't think its right to give the organization its own page and then put the members on some random villain list.. 66.229.88.52 16:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  I'm clarifying that they are not major characters. My point with the Rookie Nine characters is that everyone besides Naruto, Sakura, and Sasuke are considered more or less minor, while many of them have received more coverage than practically every other Akatsuki member. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cut and merge to an appropriate parent article, I don't see and can't find any indication that this part of the fictional work is on its own notable. Just because a fictional work is notable doesn't mean every piece of it is, this organization can be mentioned briefly in the plot summary of the parent article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Condense and merge into Akatsuki (Naruto). I know that it already broke off of Akatsuki's article, but it can fit back in if it is heavily condensed. Cut the plot aside from background, keep abilities and personality in a brief blurb that is as condensed as possible. Oh, and cut the stats under each character's header. You Can't See Me! 03:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Subtopics are perfectly acceptable when the content becomes too large. Though the content could be trimmed down, I wonder if it would be by enough. Regardless, a merge would require it being kept anyway. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Akatsuki is a crucial part of the plot of Naruto. In order for an unfamiliar reader to gain any reasonable understanding of Akatsuki as a whole, they need to understand the characters that make up the organisation. That make this article entirely necessary in order for the Akatsuki article to be at all encyclopaedic. 121.44.245.55 09:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC) — 121.44.245.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If we don't have a list of members then we don't need the organization. If we don't have the organization that drives the series, then we don't even need the series, and if we don't have articles about everything possible for anyone to be informed about any possible thing then we are communists. How are we communists? We would be communists because a free encyclopedia with free articles except some are more free/equal than others doesn't sound communist to you then you must be a hippie... 172.129.101.84 => ^_^ Hu, that's guy is right ! --Mrpouetpouet 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So what if you think he/she is right? Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is the quality of the argument, not the quantity. Omghgomg 10:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, yeah I just found that very funny ^^ I can only agree with Jreferee, there isn't no independant source about akatsuki's members. However it's a problem that can be noted with most of articles about manga's characters... But in that case it concerns :"2 649 ± 8% 0.0264% 24. List of Akatsuki members"; I really enjoyed reading this article several times ^_^. That's why it seems me cleverer too keep it waiting for devloppement of the manga and independant sources than to delete this article that isn't that bad. (Thus it exists a few independant sources about akatsuki in japenese ;) --Mrpouetpouet 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC) PS Akatsuki is a crucial part of the plot of Naruto That's right. Akatsuki's members are major charaters of the second part, several ones are still misterious, that's true; however do not forget that that "season" hasn't been completed yet ;)
• Keep or Merge Akatsuki members themselves (excluding Itachi) can be considered minor characters of a major work, and as such a list is not unreasonable. Although, I do think that the information should be condensed and possibly re-written (in either keep or merge), as most of the information given seems like it's been tacked on piece by piece rather than written as a whole. Ansalo 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, unless minor characters in akatsuki (not minor members) are trimmed, in that case merge. The reason why it was splited out before is that the entire list is too long, and even with all our current edits, it may be so. In any case, Itachi is certainly a keeper, but Sasori is not (only one arc). As Deidara is dead, from what i know, he is just there for comic relief. Hidan is only interesting because he is not dead and killed Asuma, while his partner (I even forgot his name -_-; ) is just as worthless (just another villian). I will err on Tobi and Pein, as they are the leaders of Akatsuki. Still, as I said, by the time we can trim enough to merge it, it would still be too long.George Leung 09:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• KeepWhy would anyone want to delete this page?? This page is very informative on the members of the Akatsuki.I would hate it if i was looking for the Akatskui page for inromation, and it was deleted. -- notshortbutchibi 710:11, 28 Agaust 2007 (UTC)
• KeepI like this list better than if each member has their own pages, its more organized. Third party sources have indeed compiled info on the organization, just they are not very notable. I suggest at least merging this article with Akatsuki (naruto) if we cannot keep this page 65.33.155.10 01:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: per AfD: Chess Pieces (MÄR). The only difference here is that the characters were split off from the main article because it got too long, this is understandable because Naruto is obviously a lot longer, more indepth and popular than MÄR is. You might as well merge List of Major Konoha teams back into the main List of Konoha Ninja article, followed by merging that into the Konoha article itself. - The Norse 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Come on, I can see that some other members don't know about supermajority, but the admins? Supermajority is in fact the policy of Wikipedia. It is used in controversial mergers and deletions like this. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but Supermajority is wikipedian policy. Look it up if you don't believe me. To be deleted, this article must have a consensus towards deletion, however This is very controversial and consensus will not be reached. While a good portion of arguements are against wikipedian policies, most are legitamite arguements. I'd also like to state that simply saying that they aren't major is kind of pointless as not all members are, the organization is major and a few of the members are still being debated about that very subject. 172.162.61.144 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Err, what? Wikipedia:Supermajority is tagged as {{rejected}}. Consensus != voting --Phirazo 02:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable per this magazine. Incidentally, I have yet to not see this magazine in a supermarket - I am just be limited to supermarkets in the continental US, though.KrytenKoro —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrytenKoro (talk • contribs) 04:11, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Delete the page of the Akatsuki members? This makes about as much sense as deleting the page of Organization XIII from Kingdom Hearts II or the Empire from Star Wars. These are the MAIN VILLIANS of Naruto II we're talking about here. If Orochimaru has his own page, seeing that he was the villian of most of Naruto's first part, this these guys should have their own as well. Read most of the manga, and you could see WHO killed Gaara to take his beast, WHO killed Amaru, etc. Suggestion, instead of wiping out this article, how about you cut and merge this one with the Akatsuki, and keep the important info of the members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroGiga (talk • contribs) 08:38, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although many of the characters themselves are minor, Akatsuki as a whole are a major part as the antagonists of the series. Their philosophy of being a ninja are against everything stood for by the major villages, including Leaf and Sand, and their actions are intent towards the destruction of life as the protagonists know it. The article should be better organized regarding the characters, basing around their personality and their position in the story (Sasori: village destroyer, Chiyo's grandson; Hidan: motivates Shikamaru to action after killing his sensei Asuma, etc) At the same time, the article for Itachi Uchiha should also be kept seperate from the other Akatsuki outside links, due to his connection not only with the organization but due to his connection with many of the actions in the Leaf village. The revenge of the destruction of the clan, connected with side protagonist Sasuke Uchiha, is a major revolving plot of the series and I do believe there is enough information involving Itachi's character both now and in the future that merits him an article unconnected to the rest of the Akatsuki characters, particularly since he is the Leaf representative in the organization and the driving character not only for Sasuke but also for Naruto and other characters in the village. -StrangerAtaru 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Naruto, which I had never heard of, is in the top 10 of Wikipedia pages visited for August. It has consistently been in the top 100 for several months (all those I checked). This indicates to me that it is an extraordinarily popular topic. An article on any work of fiction would be expected to include information about characters and organizations in the story. However, when that, and the other information in the article, gets to be too long it has been our standard practice to 'split out' sections into separate articles. I do not agree that those 'sub articles' inherit no 'notability' from the primary topic... given that they are just parts of that primary article which have been re-located for page size reasons. Otherwise, we are encouraging people to place the exact same info back into the 'Naruto' article (and doing likewise for all fictional topics) to 'protect' it from deletion. Wikipedia is not paper. We have room to create sub-articles to help in logically organizing a topic... and we shouldn't re-imagine our deletion procedures to dissuade users from following those good article organization practices. If this info were in the Naruto article it would be kept. Possibly rewritten for clarity, brevity, and significance but absolutely and unquestionably kept. Not keeping it when it has been split out accomplishes nothing except undermining good article design. --CBD 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per WP:SS and because this page is needed to understand the complex plot and structure of Naruto. - Peregrine Fisher 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Akatsuki is a major villain in Naruto, and therefore there should be a page that tends to Akatsuki individually, including it's members, since Akatsuki is not a minor villain and has alot to do with the whole plot of Naruto and Naruto: Shippuden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handro3 (talk • contribs) 22:26, August 29, 2007 (UTC) — Handro3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - things are getting sort of confused here. The list of Akatsuki members is certainly worth having, but as part of the main Akatsuki page. I don't think it needs to be split off into its own article like this. Doceirias 03:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The article was split off due to length conerns, not its own merit as an article. - The Norse 03:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• The main Akatsuki article is pretty short. And I believe Wikipedia policy would have it that every article needs to stand on its own. Doceirias 03:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's not Wikipedia policy, as there are both people with that position, and people who don't interpret things that way. It's still an ongoing matter, at least as regards fiction. FrozenPurpleCube 04:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So some articles are immune to WP:PLOT because they are "sub-articles"? News to me. --Phirazo 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's more because of WP:CONSENSUS actually. FrozenPurpleCube 13:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 05:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richmond Medical Center

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

This article has been flagged as having many issues. The major ones causing this nomination are lack of any real asserted and cited notability in the article itself (whether the place is notable or not I cannot easily tell from the article), and the total advertorial feel of the entire article. The other issues are as valid, but are secondary and are flagged in the article itself using {{articleissues}}. should the major issues be addressed I can be persuaded by coherent argument to withdraw this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 14:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I was skeptical that this article would need to be deleted, but more than one search I just completed looking for articles to cite that would establish notability turned up nothing of real value. While I would be against a blanket "hospitals are notable" position, I have actually started more than one hospital article with appropriate sources that establish notability. I don't see them here. Erechtheus 15:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is the first Kaiser Hospital, albeit moved to a new building. Also an element of a long running dispute about hospital coverage in poorer areas of the country There's been a staring contest between this hospital and another nearby, both owners wanting to close theirs down and let the other pick up the slack. I flat out don't have time to fix this right now. - Richfife 15:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is a tough one. What would notability require? I'm sure that local newspapers have written articles on them. That doesn't make them notable. Without an explicit standard, I don't see how you make a decision. That would probably default to a Keep. MarkinBoston 16:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment why wouldn't an appropriate level of coverage in local press make this hospital notable? In fact, that is precisely the sort of coverage I would expect would make this sort of institution notable. Erechtheus 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment using a {{cite}} (one of the relevant ones) appropriately to cite newspaper coverage is perfectly valid, and is exactly what is required. The other issues the article has also need substantial attention, but good citations would go a long way to redeeming it. I am concerned both about the cited notability and the article quality. Fiddle Faddle 17:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It seems we're on exactly the same page, then. I know of no citations that could be made, which is why I expressed my support for deletion. If somebody does have citations, it would be my hope they would add them. Erechtheus 17:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I have a big apparent COI, but having worked at KP, I'm not sure that any of our (thirty plus) individual medical centers are sufficiently notable to sustain their own articles. As to KFH RMC itself, it wasn't the first Kaiser Permanente hospital, it was the second. In any event, notability isn't asserted, and I'm not sure it can be, all things considered, so delete.   justen   17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is basically just another regional hospital in this area. This article is a result of the unfortunate tendency by certain editors to attempt to document every single structure within their view, which only trivializes this as an "encyclopedia". There has to be some gate-keeping done so that the whole thing doesn't collapse under the tremendous weight of accumulated cruft. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - We're not a directory of hospitals. A lot of the stuff in that Richmond template needs to be deleted Corpx 19:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP if a high school with 500 students is notable, why isnt a hospital with thousands of patients notable, a high school just teaches one area of one community, this hospital treats the hundreds of thousands of people of west Contra Costa County, and its the first kaiser hospital, the longest running its the direct descendant of Henry J. Kaiser's healh plan for the shipyard workers of world war II, the original campus is on the national register of historic places. the hospital is in the news all the time because it is having to brunt all of the emergency services of the entire region since the doctor's medical center hospital in san pablo's emergency services department had to close, maybe the article should be given a chance to be rewritten and improved before it is deleted it is of note. but if we delete it then there is nothing and nothing may be improved. id also like to say if every episode of friends or monk is worth an article why not an important campus such as this? it is many times larger than say Berkeley City College in berkeley and is of similar size as the Bay Street Mall in Emeryville. let me find some more information.Cholga^talK! 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment you said Maybe the article should be given a chance to be rewritten and improved before it is deleted it is of note. You have obviously not read the nomination. Rewrite it and address the issues and I will be persuaded to withdraw the nomination. A rwrite is not rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, but a real, meaningful rewrite. The AfD process is designed with this action in mind. Fiddle Faddle 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment i think people would have a much higher chance of looking up kaiser richmond than an episode of a TV show, i think ti should be noted that hospital articles are very common and it may be unfair to delete this article and not say any other san francisco bay area hospital articles 17 or in california 93 or in the united states (53 categories), hospitals by country 75 categories! there are hundreds of these articles, maybe thousands, id say they any hospital is notable, especially a large one such as this. this article is part of a series on such structures.Cholga^talK! 22:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on comment: Please tell us why you think they (other hospital articles) and this article are notable. It's not enough to say "I think they're notable"; you need to explain your rationale for it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment yet another reason i think this article should exist is that think about it, the name shows up in the news all the time and you might want to find more information about somthing you hear about in the news, do a simple google news search for the article's title and youll see just that, people know it by name.Cholga^talK! 23:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This is actually a historically important hospital as it was one of the first hospital (then called the Richmond Field Hospital) built by Henry J. Kaiser to serve employees of his extremely important World War II shipbuilding efforts in the Kaiser Shipyards in Richmond (specific article: Richmond Shipyards) and vicinity. It was here that was the birth of the HMO, for better or for worse.[63][64][65] --Oakshade 23:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The references, if they assert notability, should go into the article. Stating them here is interesting, helpful and not the full job. This article is in a woeful state. If you feel strongly enough to go for a strong keep, please edit it strongly too. Fiddle Faddle 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

it is the full job, it asserts the notability, you should try and be more encouraging because from my point of view your comment was very demanding. one more note why is there an article for nearly every vehicle that the Unitrans bus agency uses or have ever used and this article is up for deletion? wtf?[66] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 00:06, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think you are misunderstanding the task at hand. Asserting notability in this discussion has a huge point, of course it does. But this discussion is not the article. And it is the article that we are discussing. We have started the discussion with an execrable article. However well this discussion goes towards keeping the article by asserting notability inside the discussion (assuming it does so), if the article is not edited then it remains an execrable article. This deletion discussion is irrelevant to the reader of the encyclopaedia. A casual reader will not come here after this discussion is closed (if the article is kept), they will look at the unimitigated rubbish that the article has been allowed to be, if the article is not edited. You have encouragement from me in spades. Go to it and create a decent article from the appalling mess that is there. Fiddle Faddle 06:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's simply a content issue, not a notability one. Just because an article on a notable topic doesn't yet have content that proves notability doesn't magically make the topic non-notable. It just means that content should eventually be in the article. I don't support the "we have to destroy it in order to save it" logic. --Oakshade 21:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; the standard is verifiability and availability of reliable sources, assuming that it's at least marginally notable, and as a major medical center in the northeast Bay Area, that should be self-evident. Antandrus (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Just because the page is a stub, doesn't it is not notable. Chris! _{my talk} 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as the entry is notable ( per Oakshade). This is the type of content that people look up in an encyclopedia. It is being actively worked on to improve it now so I'm hopeful it will eventually be a nice article. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - part of Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park (although I can't tell if any of the original buildings are there any more). The hospital, as an institution, sounds like it's had a significant impact within the community. I'm not convinced that the listing of services is all that notable, though; some surgery (ha!) should probably be performed on the article to excise any bits of unnecessary content. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egerland

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

This article is full of historical nonsenses, it is supported by the map from World War II period (1938-1945) only. There is not any additional reference except that map. I tried to search for references on google but I didn't find any relevant information. I suggest its deletion and merging of some information to Karlovy Vary Region. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but source. Egerland, which was an independent fief until the 14th century, gets plenty of results on Google Books (e.g. egerland+region, to avoid the personal name), and lends its name to a particular breed of cattle. If merged to anything it should be Eger aka Cheb. --Dhartung | Talk 16:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There are two inter-wiki links from this page, one to the German wikipedia, and one to the Roumanian one. Checking the edit logs of all three revealed that one editor was active on both the English and German wikis, the Roumanian article being written by anonymous users, however there were a number of other editors who contributed to both the German and English wikis and there appears to be no pattern of collusion to perpetuate a hoax.

We are not meant to set store on a topics notability or veracity on how many hits there are on Google however searching for Egerland on Google 111,000 hits, it has to be conceded that many of these are to individuals surnamed "Egerland" and a band called "Egerland" however prominent among the other google hits were this and this website, the first a Czech and the second a German one. These two websites suggest that a region called 'Egerland' did exist and it is seen as a lost German state by some. Of course this doesn't preclude that these websites are the work of nationalist crackpots with an agenda to follow.

Searching on English Wikipedia for "Egerland" returns mentions in 16 different articles. Mention is made of an "Egerland" dialect, land borders, and a historical Central European region, establishing a pattern that suggests the existence of a historical but now defunct Germanic region. Of course we are not meant to use Wikipedia itself as a source, but this again suggests that "Egerland" existed, or at the very least that "Egerland" in the minds of some individuals.

Given that "Egerland" exists in two other wiki-projects I set about to see if other wikiprojects had "Egerland" articles. A search of French Wikipedia returned an article on the Germanic Bavarii tribe, Egerland being described as part of an historical territory of this tribe from which they were ethnically cleansed in the aftermath of the Second world war (q,v.). Search of the Spanish Wikipedia returned an article on the Vogtland although a redlink the mention of "Egerland" in this article contends that this territory was a Germanic one now incorporated into the Czech republic (q.v.). Egerland also appears in a Polish list and in two Czech Wikipedia articles this one and this one; articles that the nominator is better able to read than me.

A search on Wikicommons found 5 items, one being a photograph of a building clearly showing the word Egerland on its signage. Three of these items were maps, two versions being essentialy the one in the English article of more interest however was the deletion logs of a copyvio map with exactly the same title. From this detail I can surmise that the following happened, an older copyrighted map was used on the German Egerland article, and when this had to be removed a low quality map was created by German Wikipedia editors base on the copyvio one, subsequently an English version of this map was used for English wikipedia (it should be easy to check if this is true by having another look at the article logs). This means that even if the "Egerland" map is a fabrication it is not the fabrication of Wikipedia editors.

From my research I conclude that although archaic and defunct, "Egerland" as a region existed and is still referred to as such by some, I suppose in much the same way that a Brit will refer to Mercia or Wessex though these regions are long dead. I do not believe that deletion is in order.KTo288 17:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per KTo288 and Dhartung. The sources do exist if not always in English. Let's not let systemic bias prevent us from using non-English research tools. --Oakshade 03:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Its not a scholarly source, just what I had on hand, but my copy of the 1996 edition of The Rough Guide to the Czech and Slovak Republics seems to support most of what is asserted in the article, that Eger is the German name for the city of Cheb, given to it by german colonists in the eleventh century and the Egerland the district around it. That the city and its surrounding lands were essentially independent until the 19th century, that the german populaion were hostile to the formation of a Czech identity, that they supported the Nazis and were driven from the area in the aftermath of WW II —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 11:37, August 28, 2007 (UTC) Sorry forgot signature againKTo288 14:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems like a good article to me--Zingostar 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Jupiter (planet)

Blue Jupiter (planet) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article details an aspect of a planet classification system that is only theoretical, and the concept is already detailed at Appearance of extrasolar planets. Furthermore, the term "Blue Jupiter" is not used in the literature, the term used instead is "clear". The article contains much uncited speculation and gives far more validity to a purely theoretical classification system than is necessary. Chaos syndrome 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe it is a legitimate term, I don't know. The title is misleading; that may be the reason this isn't a popular term, because of the confusion. Geez, who is it who's so dull that they have to call any big planet "a Jupiter"? Mandsford 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Chaos syndrome is correct.— JyriL ^talk 19:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Harlowraman 15:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Jawa Report

The Jawa Report (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fixing malformed nom. Page was deleted before. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Original nom's comments were: "one of 100s of political blogs & not even high ranking trafic out of 1000s, wikipedia is not a web directory and article is of a low quality Standabove 14:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)". This comment was previously attached to the page's original AfD from 2006. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 15:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of coverage of this blog. SALT is deemed necessary to prevent recreation Corpx 19:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of significant in-depth sources - one passing mention in an article is all we have, and there seems to be very little except blogs. Maybe as a consequence, most of the content isn't actually about the Jawa Report. --Huon 20:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no significant coverage. --Eyrian 22:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Google news attempted to censor this blog from its google news service but was quickly forced to recant. This subject was covered in depth by the American Thinker in this article [67]. Nick mallory 01:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Site was subject of 2005 controversy related to Google censorship and is a notable news blog site .--CltFn 03:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The Google censorship attempt is indeed covered in depth. Unfortunately, the Jawa Report isn't. For example, all we learn from the source given by Nick mallory except about Google bias is that [t]he Jawa Report focuses a great deal of attention on terrorist issues and how they relate to radical Islam. That's a passing mention only, and confirms only the article's first sentence. That's not as bad as it seems, though, because major parts of the article speak of Jawas and the owner's pen name, but not of the Report itself. The Jawa Report is already used as an example in Google Censorship, but the blog itself is not notable per WP:WEB. Even worse, practically everything except that one sentence and the Google incident is either unsourced or (in case of the Alexa ranking) even wrong. --Huon 11:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Insignificant; rare coverage by blog-watch columns, likes Slate magazine's.--Kitrus 01:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable blog. Italia^vivi 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St.Nicholas Primary School, Carrickfergus

St.Nicholas Primary School, Carrickfergus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Wieslaw Szczech 14:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Onnaghar ^{tl ! co} 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as violating WP:NOT#DIR and WP:N. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments Corpx 19:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an ordinary local school which has very little context/content and does not assert notability and has no categories either.--JForget 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Article does not establish notability or context. After searching I could not find few sources which could establish verification either. Camaron1 | Chris 10:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nothing presented to show that they meet WP:MUSIC at this time. --Coredesat 05:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand ole party

Grand ole party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by editor. Non-notable band not meeting the criteria of WP:MUSIC WebHamster 13:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Good number of edits, I see no reason for the deletion of this stub. Just because it is not notable for you does not mean that it is not notable for someone. - Fosnez 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My own preferences don't come into it, you have no idea what I personally find notable. The article simply doesn't meet the laid down criteria in WP:MUSIC. WebHamster 14:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This article appears to establish that they are about to embark on a national tour. I think that's good enough for notability under WP:MUSIC even if the standard is technically that they have already been on the tour. It makes no sense to delete now and then have notability cemented a few weeks from now when they make their first move from west coast to east coast on the tour. Erechtheus 15:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

They assert that they are to tour, but they don't provide any 3rd party verification to say that they are. This is an AFD so assertion isn't the criteria. I also noted that it was a technicality and had they provided independent verification I wouldn't have instigated the AFD. That is the closest they get to WP:MUSIC so really it isn't even borderline without verification. WebHamster —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:57, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

• Comment. This isn't the band asserting they're about to tour -- it's a music information website with a six year history asserting they're about to tour. Here is another instance of the tour information. Erechtheus 16:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The nomination was based on the article. The article doesn't cite any verification. It's not my responsibility to track down what the article's editor should have done. WebHamster —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:11, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

• Comment. This is a discussion about whether there should be an article. It's not a critique of whether or not you should have made a nomination. I will tell you that many here do expect that you will check out whether there are easily accessible sources that justify the claims in the article, but I'm not in that camp. I don't think you were wrong to nominate the article, but I don't think it would be right to delete it given what I have uncovered. Erechtheus 16:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Non-notable, not even close. If they become the new Nirvana, a page can be created again. No independent references to charting, international touring, etc. MarkinBoston 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Becoming the new Nirvana is not even close to being the appropriate measure of what makes a band notable. Please review WP:MUSIC. Erechtheus 16:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - if kept should be moved to Grand Ole Party (capitalised). the wub "?!" 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not quite sure how "gone on a national tour" in WP:MUSIC is to be interpreted, but I found this source which claims that they "will be opening for" someone else's tour. Given that their debut album will be available soon, this looks a little funny. Anyway, if kept, move to correct capitalization per the wub. -- Huon 20:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:Music notability criteria. Maybe bring back when national tour and proof of such has occurred (not will occur) has been established with 3rd party reliable sources. Any one can upload to Google video and have a MySpace page so those links are simply promotional and not considered reliable sources. No other proof exists within this article. ♫ Cricket02 17:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)