Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biker Zombies From Detroit

Biker Zombies From Detroit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable independent horror film. IrishGuy ^talk 23:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Local coverage or minor mentions found in Google News Archive, no in-depth reviews and the film won no awards. --Dhartung | Talk 23:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no in depth reviews listed on imdb, not much coverage on the web beyond passing references, although I did find one hit that said it was accepted to Cannes, appearantly not winning any awards though Ealdgyth | Talk 12:55, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Search Engine Watch

Search Engine Watch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Second nomination. Non-notable website, no independent sources, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Website has a ridiculous amount of coverage ranging from CNET to the NYT, if only someone would grab some of those for citations. --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, I don't see much significant coverage. Lots of press releases and minor blog mentions, but little major media articles. No doubt the company exists, and the original owner gets mentions in business rags, but it's not exactly Microsoft. Put up good references and I'll be convinced. MarkBul 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This isn't just a nothing website, but rather, one where the founder is quite widely cited, in books and other media. I think their awards are also fairly notable, since they receive some attention as well. I suggest tagging for cleanup. I expect this might be a bit hard since the people involved get quoted a lot, enough that I'd say that alone demonstrates notability. FrozenPurpleCube 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth considering this as a property of Mecklermedia as well, which I can find a lot more direct sources on. [1]. FrozenPurpleCube 00:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And hey, I found this page: [2] which has the following quotes: Google's Matt Cutts considers Danny Sullivan's Search Engine Watch website "must reading." To Yahoo's Tim Mayer, it's simply the "most authoritative source on search." Hmmm....I think that makes a pretty strong case for notability. FrozenPurpleCube 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep how specifically should we add the references? In a simple reference catagory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.241.245 (talk) 02:02, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
• KeepYou don't need to be Microsoft to get an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely those who want to keep this can come up with reliable sources? Corvus cornix 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely you can read the article I cited. Or is USAToday quoting two representatives from major search engine companies not a reliable source for some reason? FrozenPurpleCube 19:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely you can add the source to the article, which has been sourceless for two years now. Corvus cornix 20:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I want to, but I take it that you have no objections to the source? That it satisfies your concern as to reliable sources attesting to the notability of this site? FrozenPurpleCube 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If those who claim that the source is valid don't want to add it to the page, then just how sure are they of their claim that it's valid? Corvus cornix 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

100%? Speaking for myself, I am quite comfortable with the source, I just don't feel like bothering with editing the page. FrozenPurpleCube 22:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It does seem odd to introduce sources into a discussion and not add them--it's at least as easy to add them as explain why you aren't. But the criterion for keeping an article is sourceable, whether or not it has been actually edited to show the sources. DGG (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, NYTimes coverage satisfies WP:WEB. Italia^vivi 20:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, leading news site within the Internet Marketing space. If you do a few Google searches, you can find plenty of potential references. The standard is referenceable, not referenced. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - quite notable, as per NYT and USAToday refs confirm. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:30, 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, obvious bad faith nom as user has history of vandalism and other disruptive edits. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncyclopedia

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

Seems to be advertising the site, with nothing to prove it is notable. Please do not speedy close this nomination. USApr0n 15:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, I see articles from New York Times Select, Guardian Unlimited, Hindustan Times, the New Zealand Herald, and Arizona Daily Star. I'd say that's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diletante (talk • contribs) 17:03, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep its a notable subject, has enough sources to back up notability. Sherzo 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, Very popular website, a large amounts of hits, has enough sources, as per above, (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=uncyclopedia.org&url=uncyclopedia.org/) and there is absolutely no reason to delete --KaufmanIsAwesome 20:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• I think it's worth keeping. Uberpickle 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep please check the references section and the other deletion nominations before nominating an article for deletion. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, the notability is well-illustrated by the references and the site has been mentioned in the mass media. Also, I personally don't see any "advertising" of the site, so I assume a bad faith nom. I'd also like to point out that this is USApr0n's 3rd edit on Wikipedia. And, there's also vandalism among his few contributions, so the nom itself may be a prank.Erratic Communist 22:19, 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. However, the discussion indicates that the article needs to be cleaned up and sourced; if this does not happen within a reasonable period of time, it would be appropriate to open a new AfD. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate change in popular culture

Climate change in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very trivial list of mentions. Doesn't serve much purpose, except to be yet another "pop culture" cluttered list. RobJ1981 23:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article should probably be moved to "Global warming in popular culture", but it's a concise summation of fictional depictions of the "worst possible scenario". Mandsford 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Mandsford. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup. The topic has been the subject of non-trivial scholarly works.[3] It can be made an article about the subject and keep a few of the most notable examples. Dbromage [Talk] 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• The mere existence of the words "climate change" and "popular culture" in the same issue of a journal does not in any way indicate that the subject of "climate change in popular culture" has been the subject of any works. This is yet another directory of loosely associated topics looking to bring together any reference to something that even resembles climate change whether it takes place on Earth or not, along with stories which are not about climate change at all but are instead about superviallian plots to blow things up or use heat rays or whatever, and bangs them together to pretend that the list tells us anything remotely encyclopedic about climate change, the works listed or their relation to each other or the real world. Delete it. Otto4711 13:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to the relevant Global warming or Climate change. Several of these titles aren't even about climate change, and the ones that are can be detailed in the main articles. Crazysuit 04:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep why we should want to delete the article because a few of the items are wrong is something i cannot understand. if we get started that way, we'll end up with very few articles left. An absurd deletion criterion: Delete if the article has an error. WP, the encyclopedia with all very few articles perfect .DGG (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• This of course does not answer the nominator's reasons for the AFD. Otto4711 17:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"trivial list"--trivial is a bald assertion, presumably meaning, sounds trivial to me, a version of Idontlikeit. Even "list"--this is not a list, but an article with short paragraph-length descriptions of each point.

"doesnt serve much purpose" WP articles are not intended to serve a purpose, in any practical sense, except in the intellectual sense of providing information . This does that.

"another popular culture cluttered list" Cluttered is an odd way of looking at what I would consider full of content, another pop culture list--well, yes, so it is, and, pop culture being notable, it should be kept. So much for the nom. arguments. A few further arguments have been made:

"the mere existence of the words "climate change" and "popular culture" in the same issue of a journal " That seems a misunderstanding, the words occur together not in the same issue of a journal but in each individual individual scholarly article, and while not all of the 1280 talk about it specifically, the titles and quotes from some of them clearly do. I think that those opposing these articles are not carefully considering either the articles or the evidence proposed to support them: " the scientific-policy debates surrounding climate change. ... El Niño became a part of the popular culture", "how this process was influenced by climate change. ... In popular culture this simple onward and upward view of human development", and most spectacularly "and then resonate with and through popular culture. ... concerns over environmental degradation, global warming, climate change and weapons of ... " (K Dodds - Progress in Human Geography, 2001). This is as clear a demonstration as could be asked for, and if you want to see the details, go read the article.DGG (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• But you see, as with so many of these trivia dumps, the article is not about "climate change in popular culture." It's just a list of supposed instances of it. Feel free to write an actual article about the topic if the sources you're citing are actually about the subject and not just instances of the words appearing together, but these lists of "look, over there, climate change on a TV show!" are not sound bases for encyclopedia articles. And as far as the claim that this isn't a list, of course it's a list. A list whose items consist of a couple of sentences each is no less a list. Why, you yourself have generated a list in your response just above, and your list items all consist of multiple sentences. The idea that a list of trivia is no less a list of trivia because it's not laid out in bullet points is ridiculous, and this list is in fact laid out in bullet points. It's form over function, style over substance, and the fact that a list looks somewhat non-listlike is not an excuse for keeping the list. Otto4711 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an article about cultural influences can be in either list or paragraph format--or table, as a few of similar articles have been. it is not bullet points that make a list, but the presence of short items of information --typically a sentence at the most,or an entry in a table. Whether or not bullets are used, this isnt a list. I mention this only because some have above & elsewhere used form as a criterion, under the mistaken idea that there is a rule against list or even deprecating them.

The real question is content, and the fact that the creators of one work make reference to others is one of the bases of art and literary construction and discussion, and i have shown you a number of articles showing that just such discussion take place in notable peer reviewed sources. That really does meet all the requirements--sourceable is sufficient. We do not discard articles that can be improved--or at least we generally haven't been until this series. I am, quite frankly, not particularly interested or qualified in writing about the subject, and I do not argue that the article should be kept because I personally want to work on it. i don't. I want it kept so that others can, and since I very quickly found some rather obviously relevant sources, I include them both to prove, that they exist, and as a starting point for others. You challenged me to find them, and I did. I've met every challenge you've made--even given the greater amount of work in meeting such a challenge than in making it. I've found sources very time you ask, and you go on asserting there aren't any or that everything that is found is not relevant. I think this indicates that you object to the topic even though the material meets all the rules. I haven't the least problem with that, you can have your own opinion about the importance of this, as long as you do not attempt to destroy what other people think important. (We've worded this as you & I but this is just a convenient way of speaking-- I am sure we both mean those who oppose the article on these grounds and those who support them, without any personalities really being involved in this). DGG (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• As I have said repeatedly, I do not have an objection to an actual sourced article about this topic. A mere list of examples of the topic is not an article about the topic. The notion that a list composed of a series of short paragraphs is not a list is bizarre. Otto4711 18:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep as notable, per above, but needs at least 2 more cites IMHO. Bearian 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Yeah, global warming is notable, but this doesn't work as an article, just a trivial list that doesn't belong. Dannycali 22:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This can be cleaned up and properly sourced. Thin Arthur 05:34, 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. This result does not preclude a merge, which can be proposed on the article's talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moses in hellenistic literature

Moses in hellenistic literature (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Makes statements of a religious nature (ex. "...this was owing to the power God lent him while he received the Law"). References only books in the Bible, and not secondary sources. Alksub 23:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the whole text it quotes many historians and you are taking the quote out of context read then whole thing While the Pentateuch represents Moses as the greatest of all prophets, to whom the Lord made Himself known face to face... yet there is no attempt made to lift him above the ordinary man in his nature...but this was owing to the power God lent him while he received the Law; he died and was buried like any other mortal...Owing to the contact of the Jews with the Greeks in Alexandria, Moses was made the subject of many legends, and in many respects lifted to supernatural heights.--Java7837 13:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - it actually references some good historiographic sources that should be added to the list at main article, which I mean to do soon, then this straight up copy from the 1911 Jewish Encyclopedia can safely be deleted. Til Eulenspiegel 02:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have now merged the main historiographic bits worth salvaging; most of the rest of this is hardly modern or impartial language ("Fantastic and grotesque as these stories are..."), so I say go ahead and delete now. Til Eulenspiegel 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• CSD tagged as copyvio Corpx 06:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia is a PD source, see the article on it. DGG (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Aargh...Transwiki to wikisource then Corpx 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Is not POV read these quotes

1. While the Pentateuch represents Moses as the greatest of all prophets, to whom the Lord made Himself known face to face (Deut. xxxiv. 10; comp. Num. xii. 7), and who, when descending Mount Sinai, had a halo about his head which so filled the people with awe that they could not look at him (Ex. xxxiv. 29), yet there is no attempt made to lift him above the ordinary man in his nature
2. the views of hellenists for example Ben Sira was probably the first to compare him with the angels, the Jewish men of letters who lived in Alexandria were by no means satisfied with the idea
3. Fantastic and grotesque as these stories are, they are scarcely inventions of Artapanus only.
4. Long contact of the Jews of Alexandria with Egyptian men of letters in a time of syncretism, when all mythology was being submitted to a rationalizing process, naturally produced such fables.
5. Philo also shows familiarity with these legends; he refers to the beauty of the babe Moses.
6. The end of the great lawgiver especially was surrounded with legends.
7. Philo says: "He was entombed not by mortal hands, but by immortal powers, so that he was not placed in the tomb of his forefathers, having obtained a peculiar memorial [i.e., grave] which no man ever saw"
8. Later on, the belief became current that Moses did not die, but was taken up to heaven like Elijah. This seems to have been the chief content of the apocryphon entitled "Assumption of Moses," preserved only in fragmentary form
9. No sooner was the view maintained that Moses was translated to heaven than the idea was suggested that his soul was different from that of other men.
10. Philo also calls Moses "the mediator and reconciler of the world"

Do not misquote it actually says"While the Pentateuch represents Moses as the greatest of all prophets, to whom the Lord made Himself known face to face (Deut. xxxiv. 10; comp. Num. xii. 7), and who, when descending Mount Sinai, had a halo about his head which so filled the people with awe that they could not look at him (Ex. xxxiv. 29), yet there is no attempt made to lift him above the ordinary man in his nature. He lived for forty days and forty nights on the mount without eating and drinking (Deut. ix. 9), but this was owing to the power God lent him while he received the Law; he died and was buried like any other mortal (ib. xxxiv. 5-6). Owing to the contact of the Jews with the Greeks in Alexandria, Moses was made the subject of many legends, and in many respects lifted to supernatural heights." ....

Besides if you think it violates POV then simply edit the article--Java7837 13:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

it references many non-biblical texts only the introduction quotes from the bible only to show while the bible says moses died and other things hellenists said many things about him that conflicted with the bible

texts quoted Eusebius, "Præparatio Evangelica Philo Josephus Flavius Assumption of Moses and many other hellenistic peoples and their texts --Java7837 13:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Needs editting, but the topic is notable. --EAEB 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation. Jewish encyclopedia should not be cut and pasted onto wikipedia. Granted there is no copy violation. but the article are near impossible to read. The references are hard to understand, and much of it is original research. JE is fine as a source, and ok of a backbone of an article - but cut and pasting does not do wikipedia any favors. After a few months sentences degrade to the point where they are ununderstandable and there is no one to ask what was meant. Jon513 14:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep'. It is not original research, because it comes from Jewish Encyclopedia. WP:OR is when the Wikipedia editors do research themselves and then publish it in an article. If it has been published elsewhere, it is never OR. The article needs a lot of cleanup, but deserves to be kept.--Carabinieri 14:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep', thoroughly cleanup, add modern sources. Mukadderat 16:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per EAEB. Needs significant rewrite and modernization, contemporary POVs and sources, the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia reflects a particular POV, etc. However, these problems can be corrected, and the material is encyclopedic. --Shirahadasha 19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs a massive rewrite/cleanup, as others have said... but it can be sourced, and is certainly a noted phenomenon in traditional literature. ◄Zahakiel► 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - maybe nobody saw my comment above, but just to reiterate, since I have just merged all salvageable info in at Moses, making this redundant, why not just redirect it? Til Eulenspiegel 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You did not move a majority of the material to the Moses article you even some jewish historians beliefs under Moses in rabbinic literature which is a major error in that philo josephus flavius etc. are not considered rabbis and also their works are not considered authoritative by Jews or the Rabbis--69.153.48.188 02:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. I moved some information to the section already entitled "Moses in Jewish thought", which is 100% appropriate and had already been tagged for expansion, even. Obviously, we agree that there have historically been more streams of "Jewish thought" than the "rabbinic literature" (which is usually written much, much later) and that said "rabbinic literature" does not speak for all streams of "Jewish thought". I also moved a valuable quote to the historiography section. The rest of the material that I didn't merge is total outdated opinion / POV of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia and is of scarcely any value to a neutral and impartial encyclopedia, eg. "Fantastic and grotesque as these stories are..." There is no real need to keep mostly the same info duplicated here buried amidst so much POV and outdated language; it can become a redirect. Til Eulenspiegel 11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems kind of late in the discussion to field a new proposal. Suggest keeping it to a straight keep/delete here since others have weighted in on those choices. If it's kept, you can always propose merging it with the Moses article. --Shirahadasha 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then, if you are sure I will need to start a whole new discussion to propose that the merged article be redirected. Til Eulenspiegel 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable topic, from verifiable source, main article probably too comphrensive to contain all information.Mbisanz 06:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Shirahadasha. IZAK 09:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:50, 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, which means the article is kept by default. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-elitism

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

Unreferenced POV rant, draws highly unorthodox conclusions from no evidence, WP:BLP issues due to given examples of "anti-elitists"; no evidence of topic notability in any case Eleland 23:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep. The notion is very notable. The article is easily salvageable with little googwill: it may be easily trimmed to acceptable stub based on readily googable refs, with strict control of subsequent edits. "Evidence of notability" criterion is for people and bands, where there is a danger of self-promotion. Philosophical terms are automatically notable if they are discussed in serious publications. `'Míkka 01:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Actually, evidence of notability is for all topics, although if terms are discussed non-trivially - not just used in passing, but actually discussed - in reliable published sources than notability usually exists. It may well be desirable to have an article anti-elitism but this one is so bad that it needs to be deleted so we can start over. Eleland 12:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 06:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article has no sources and is unverifiable and appears to all be original research. It contains no reliable secondary sources. The article should be deleted. If someone recreates it at a later time and writes from reliable sources, so be it. --Pixelface 12:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but perhaps include in Wiktionary. It's not a neologism, but 'there's no there there' in the article. --Rinconsoleao 12:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, seeing Thoreau, Marx, and Tom Clancy mentioned in the same list is kind of amusing... --Rinconsoleao 14:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Míkka. --EAEB 14:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per mikka. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a notable subject, published in countless scholarly sources. (See Google books, or a few random scholarly texts from around the world: [4], [5], [6]). Please refer to the policy that states that a lack of sources and low quality writing is an established deletion criteria on Wikipedia. Never heard the "We need to delete this article so that we can start a new, fresh article" argument before. Pia 05:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki To wikitionary Mbisanz 06:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Articles should be written FROM sources. The person writing an article should be looking at a source and writing FROM that source. Wikipedia is not a place for unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. I think it is wrong to write something and ask others to research a topic for you. Wikipedia is not here to do your homework for you. The burden of evidence lies with the WRITER, not the READER. If the writer of the material is too lazy to research a topic themselves and cite their sources, why should the reader have to make up for it? The fact is that Wikipedia articles can start rumors and they can snowball. Here's a post on kuro5hin by Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia and founder of Citizendium (or someone using his name) [7], about anti-elitism on Wikipedia -- although I don't think kuro5hin is a reliable source; it probably counts as a self-published source. --Pixelface 14:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and strongly clean-up. There's probably enough material to make this into a real article, but it needs to be found. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete original research.--Sefringle^Talk 05:40, 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. DS 01:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philia Zintzo

Strange article about an alleged form of love. No traces on google. `'Míkka 22:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom.No third party sources.Harlowraman 05:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if the printed sources listed are relevant. what google has to do with it escapes me. does need a rewrite for clarity. DGG (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • DCG, you are long-standing wikipedian, and I am surprized that you didn't notice that the references are for other things, not for "zintzo". Of course you will find lots of refs for "love" and "philia". `'Míkka 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, retitle. DGG (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • To what? We already have a really long philia article. `'Míkka 01:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. "zintzo" means "nice", "honest", "decent" in Basque language, and I doubt the word exists in any other language. Mukadderat 16:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete.Unless creditable references can be found. Looks like original research or maybe hoax. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

COmment Looking at the credis, I would suggest this is OR. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:50, 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 speedy delete, author blanked the article. --Coredesat 09:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wall Street Crash Prediction of 2007

Wall Street Crash Prediction of 2007 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

About predicted stock market crash this year. Looks like a problem with WP:CRYSTAL and maybe original research to get it wriiten. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced crystalballism. Jakew 23:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Not only unsourced crystalballery, it rambles and is hard to read. I can almost G1 this. Almost. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. The similar Wall Street Crash of 2007 was written by the same author and speedy-deleted for the same reasons. The reasons he cited for his conclusion exist virtually every month — billions in put options are always in play. Pure prediction and original research, borderline nonsense. Realkyhick 23:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wall Street Crash of 2007 was speedy deleted at creator's request because he had concerns about the title. So I brought the new article here. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 23:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and break the crystal ball. At best it's OR. Dbromage [Talk] 00:27, 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 by consensus. He wasn't traded for Sheffield – he was part of a package that the Tigers sent to the Yankees _for_ Sheffield. On top of that, he hasn't pitched above AA and just made it to AA this year. If he makes it to the bigs, the article can come back, but he's not notable right now. - KrakatoaKatie 09:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Whelan

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player, has not played in the major leagues. Fails WP:BASEBALL guidelines. Corvus cornix 22:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry Kevin - your mom loves you, but you are not notable in a Wiki-kinda way. MarkBul 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and Close. WP:BASEBALL is not a policy. WP:BIO asserts notability if a player plays in a fully professional league. Minor League Baseball is a fully professional (not semi-professional or amateur) league. It's pretty cut and dry. Smashville 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BASEBALL is not a policy, but i is a guideline we can follow. I don't think the minors convey sufficient notability. As to Wikipedia:Speedy keep, not applicable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO specifically says "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis". It doesn't say anything about major and minor leaguers. In addition, he was traded for Gary Sheffield. Although I will admit that this looks like it was written by his mom. Smashville 23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO isn't a policy, either. Why not argue that just being an athlete is notable? why is WP:BASEBALL any less authoratative than WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, for that matter? Corvus cornix 15:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as BIO supersedes the general WP:N when it is applicable, so do the guidelines for particular sports supersede the general specification. Maybe this specific rule should be changed. In that case, try to change it..DGG (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely in support of WP:BASEBALL's guideline. The MLB draft each year has 50 rounds, with 30 teams picking in each round. Combine that with all the sandwich picks etc and there is a lot of "new blood" into the system each year. Since roster sizes are set, these players are taking the place of somebody else and I do not think we need to make 1500+ new article for each player selected to be a professional Corpx 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Corpx. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep He is of significant note in Texas A&M Athletics History, esp in Baseball. While the current article does not make this distinction and can certainly be improved, I see no reason to delete it. In addition, the minor leagues are certainly professional sports. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Can you explain why he was significant in Texas A&M history, he seems to me like a non-notable minor league set-up man to me, only award he got was from a Summer League which is not proffesional, WP:BASEBALL is not policy, WP:N is Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 02:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Let me clarify my position. Delete unless he has notable achievements while at TAMU, as I'm opposed to keep minor leagues just because they're minor leaguers. Corpx 03:55, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of guests on the Ellen Degeneres Show

List of guests on the Ellen Degeneres Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pure listcruft. An indiscriminate list of talk show guests. The list is not notable in and of itself, and is nearly empty, and unlikely to ever be accurately maintained. Realkyhick 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not even notable enough for a category. Corvus cornix 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, useless and unmaintainable. Wasted Time R 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Oh yeah, majorly WP:LISTCRUFT, I mean I even no someone who was on the show who is not mentioned and I don't watch the show. I know because I saw 5 minutes of one episode. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As very incomplete and unnecessary. The notable guests can be mentionned in the main article.--JForget 23:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. List of loosely-associated people, appearing on a talk show for a few minutes is not a notable event. List of guests on The Dick Cavett Show and List of guest stars on The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour should probably be nominated as well because they're all as bad as each other. Crazysuit 04:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for the heads-up. I'll go after them, too. Realkyhick 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You're welcome, if you want more, there's List of entertainers appearing on Laugh USA and List of guests on The Majority Report. I was going to nominate them myself but I haven't AfDed anything for a while. Crazysuit 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks, got them too. Send any others to my talk page. Realkyhick 04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per we're not a directory of people who appeared on a daytime talk show Corpx 06:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• After putting a link to the list on the show's official website from the main article, delete, but not before doing that. Donnabella 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Its empty anyway. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If it were remotely possible to have an accurate and semi-complete list, and if there were a noteable reason to have such a list, it'd be one thing. But none of those criteria are even approached. --DJBullfish 03:31, 1 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 keep. No delete argument here counteracts the arguments that it has the sources to meet notability. CitiCat ^♫ 14:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse

• 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
• 3 March 2007 lunar eclipse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  Transwiki to Wikinews and Delete from Wikipedia. The basic question is, are individual lunar eclipses, which are events that happen typically twice per year somewhere in the world, really notable enough events that each should get individual Wikipedia articles? I don't thinks so. To me, events of this kind are what Wikinews is for, not Wikipedia. There was an earlier AfD for the 3 March 2007 lunar eclipse in which the decision came out to be a weak keep. I think the issue should be revisited in light of the creation of another article on the latest eclipse. I've also renominated that article for deletion as part of this AfD. Peter G Werner 21:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This can be summed up as "exactly the same thing happened that always happens". A lunar eclipse is not particularly special or noteworthy. It would be sufficient to include it on List of lunar eclipses. Adam Bishop 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not particularly notable among lunar eclipses. MarkBul 22:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. It's like having a seperate article for each day the Sun rises. Toomai Glittershine 22:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:Actually, I think we do have an article for each day the sun rises. They aren't about the sun rise but they are about the day. ;) IvoShandor 06:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Save As it is the only full, "genuine" eclipse in about 10 years. Plus, we need a place to host these pictures for those unfortunate few (like me) who didn't see it. I don't see any harm in keeping the article Cs92 23:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Remember that Wikipedia is not a mere collections of photographs or media files. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Genuine? I am not quite sure what you mean there. Seems the 3 March eclipse was also total. IvoShandor 07:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep was front page in Philippine Daily Inquirer yesterday and front page today in Philippine Star. Report of lunar eclipse also found its way on 24 Oras. Too bad I did not see it in person *shakes fist against clouds* --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki per nom.--JForget 23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think Total eclipses should either have their own article or have one article for all total eclipses.Robotboy2008 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unlike solar eclipses, an eclipses of the moon happen regularly enough that they individual events are not that notable. Mandsford 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Commetn That's not true. Solar eclipses happen pretty often, but the difference is that they can only be seen from a very small part of the world, unlike lunar eclipses which can be seen about half of the world. --Itub 11:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons given by Adam Bishop above. Deor 00:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As others have said, lunar eclipses aren't that rare or notable individually. All the article tells us is when and where, which could be dealt with by creating a much better List of lunar eclipses. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: both per nom. IvoShandor 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete per nom. Jac _roe^Blank 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki Pictures are worth adding to Commons at least Mbisanz 02:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or Smerge to List of lunar eclipses Not everything that appears in the newspaper needs a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Edison 02:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not every lunar eclipse appears in newspapers.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Transwiki is not an option. as Wikinews uses CC-by, which is not compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL content --lucid 03:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In English, please. Peter G Werner 07:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Transwiki is not a valid option because of copyright law. --lucid 07:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That might be true of images (though I believe many of them are on Commons already, anyway), but that's not true of article text. Peter G Werner 07:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC) OK, I see where this is stated. I wonder who's brilliant idea it was to put the different Wikis under incompatible licenses. Peter G Werner 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is ridiculous. Of course keep it. It's an unusual event! This gets to stay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/79th_Academy_Awards Wikipedia repects celebrities more than the solar system? I can't believe this is even being debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InvestorInYou (talk • contribs) 03:47, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't a valid argument, as explained by WP:OTHERSTUFF. And any particular lunar eclipse is not usually historically interesting. You have to ask yourself, in 10 years will people remember who won the Best Picture Oscar in 2006? I'd guess yes. But in 10 years will anyone remember there was a lunar eclipse in 2007? Also if you don't think we should have an article on the 79th Academy Awards, nominate that article for deletion. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • He's not saying we should delete the 79th academy awards article, but I don't think either event most people actually take seriously. I remembered the last lunar eclipse, but I don't even have a clue about last year's Oscars. 220.101.40.105 11:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep people have thought these notable for thousands of years, and recorded each one carefully. Two a year does not seem like an excessive number. given that there are two a year, yes, people will remember 10 years from now -- or a hundred years from now--that there were some in 2007. Long after the academy awards are a matter for specialists in bygone popular culture trivia, they will be notable. This is the essence of encyclopedic content. ITDOESNTINTERESTME is not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A lunar eclipse hight not be important to you, but to others it is. Every lunar eclipse has something special to say. For example, people in Australia were able to see a lunar eclipse for the first time since 2000! Removing this fact is removing information from an encyclopedia! To sum up, think about others and not just yourself. Hohohob 07:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  But the eclipse would not be removed from the encyclopedia - it would still be listed. If kept, it would end up being a short little stub with almost no useful information in it. Why does it deserve its own article simply because a certain group of people got to see it? —Mrand ^T-C 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into a list of lunar eclipses. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If each lunar eclipse event is a fantastically notable event, then why has no one bothered to contribute an article on any lunar eclipse event prior to 2007? If each was such a historic, notable event, surely these prior events would still be notable a few years later. Peter G Werner 07:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This debate is getting a bit heated (not terribly) but let's all try to remember to assume good faith here.IvoShandor 07:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yes there is nothing particularly unique about a lunar eclipse. A total lunar eclipse (85 in a century) is a bit more rare. A full blood total lunar eclipse (getting even more rare). This eclipse produced spectacular images compared to other total lunar eclipses. I don't mind deleting it later down the track, but people who were watching the sky last night and want to find out about it specifically can look at this article. Keep it for now and delete it in a month or two. Handmedown 08:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article makes not a mention of this, and the images look strikingly similar to those in 3 March lunar eclipse article to the untrained eye. IvoShandor 08:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for precisely the same reason. Gorman 08:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• 'KEEP! This is a very good example of a well-documented phenomenon; this event, for whatever reasons, brought, and continues to bring, people together. This is part of the magic which is, after all, Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.229.201 (talk) 09:25, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

  A well-documented phenomenon doesn't mean that each event needs to be captured independently - that actually ends up either spreading good information out across many articles, or results is in massive duplication of information across articles. It would be better to capture this RECURRING well-documented phenomenon in a central place that discusses it properly: Lunar_eclipse —Mrand ^T-C 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep!, It is informative because this 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse article is one of the longest eclipse this century because I see the actual lunar eclipse outside to my house that moon is appear color orange.--Joseph Solis in Australia 10:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since I was not able to see it. --Howard the Duck 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

*That's got to be the most laughable argument I've ever seen on AfD. What's next, delete World War II because I was not able to see it? --Itub 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Chill, my vote was half-sarcastic to the vote above mine... --Howard the Duck 13:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete, seriously now. Lunar eclipses (and all other eclipses in general) aren't that notable. First, something should have happened to make that eclipse notable - for example, if two nations go to war because of the eclipse, then it may be notable, but then again it will be under the article about that war. Another way for making eclipses notable is if scientists discover anything new. I haven't heard any new findings by scientists in order to make this eclipse notable. --Howard the Duck 14:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Gorman. --DandanxD 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Seems to me that a lot of the keeps are based solely upon "because I like it." IvoShandor 10:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For the reasons that Handmedown gave, then maybe merge into a article covering other lunar eclipses (maybe by year). --Leaderofearth 11:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I consider keeping it justifiable under WP:5P, "[Wikipedia] incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs" (emphasis added), and WP:NOTPAPER. It is certainly notable in the sense that there are many reliable sources about it, and it is also useful to people interested in eclipses (before someone adds a link to WP:USEFUL, please read all of it). Wikipedia has over a million articles. Having potentially a few hundred articles about eclipses is not excessive coverage IMO; it's certainly not comparable to having an article about every sunrise as some have suggested! --Itub 11:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• But to actually make it useful, wouldn't it be better to have similar events collected together so that a good, formal explanation of the event and why it is special could be addressed in one place? —Mrand ^T-C 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is very useful to have a table collecting all the eclipses, and there is such a table already: List of lunar eclipses. However, having articles about individual eclipses let us add more information that's not possible to fit in a small table entry. For example, pictures, detailed information about the time and visibility of the eclipse, media coverage, and (perhaps in some cases) notable events related to the eclipse. Whether this would be excessive detail or not, well, that's where we disagree. --Itub 14:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• What I meant was that either in the lunar eclipse article, or in a separate "total lunar eclipse" article, the exact topics which you mention could be covered in a more centralized fashion. I have no problem with the information contained in the nominated article - it's the fact that this is something that happens over and over and could easily be addressed with one article rather than lots. —Mrand ^T-C 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It wasn't visible at all in Europe. --Minimaki 12:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• And the point is...? --Itub 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• ...per Howard the Duck of course :) --Minimaki 13:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• As in disrupting the AfD process with jokes in order to make a WP:POINT? --Itub 13:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• As in making this nomination less confrontational? --Howard the Duck 14:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both articles. Being total lunar eclipses qualifies them as notable in my book. Gandalf61 12:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In response to Mrand's dismissive comments below, I will be more explicit about my reasons for keeping both articles: WP:NOTABLE says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ... Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article". Both total eclipses have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Therefore, according to Wikipedia's current policy, both total eclipses are notable. Therefore nominator's claim that they are not notable is incorrect. This claim possibly arises from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's definition of "notable". Gandalf61 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain your position. While the topic has been significantly covered, further down in WP:NOTABLE, it explains how Notability is not temporary. In my opinion, this is a perfect example of temporary notability. What would not be temporary is an article on all total lunar eclipse's that have happened, explaining why they are rare and where they were visable from. Best regards. —Mrand ^T-C 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the point I've been trying to get across. These articles are prime examples of "presentism". This most recent eclipse might be noteworthy right now, but they won't be noteworthy even next year. If each and every total eclipse event is a unique and noteworthy event, then why no article on the September 16, 1997 total lunar eclipse? Why is this not noteworthy still 10 years later? Perhaps because total lunar eclipses are not as fantastically unique and noteworthy events as proponents of these article are stating? Peter G Werner 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no valid arguments are being offered for keeping. The mere existence of the lunar eclipses does not warrant an article on it. If there were something otherwise notable about the eclipses then fine, but there wasn't. Otto4711 13:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Per reasons given above by Otto4711, Adam Bishop, MarkBul, Evil Monkey, and others. Itub looks to be the only one actually attempting to offer a valid reason.—Mrand ^T-C 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per DGG's argument and Itub's reasonable considerations. Non-notability is definitely one of the most absurd and (alas) abused strategies to remove valuable knowledge from WP. --DarTar 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG, DarTar and Itub. Full eclipses are per se notable, unless otherwise shown, and do not waste space. Bearian 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I hope whoever is closing the AfD looks at the strengths of the arguments made and not just at sheer numbers – there are some fantastically poor arguments being floated by proponents of keeping this article. So far, the only argument I've seen is that total lunar eclipse events just are notable, in and of themselves. This is an assertion, not an argument. Peter G Werner 21:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Peter, when you say "This is an assertion, not an argument" it looks as if you're suggesting that notability arguments brought by users in favour of keeping are themselves non-notable. I encourage too the person who is closing the AfD not to look just at sheer numbers but at WP's notability policy about coverage in independent sources referred to by Gandalf61. While this criterion is reasonably objective (i.e. measurable) and should provide a definite argument in favour of notability, the "temporary notability" argument (how long will this event survive) looks fairly speculative and contrary to the spirit of an encyclopedia (it could be virtually applied to any recent WP addition). Moreover, since the outcome of the previous AfD vote for the 3 March was a weak keep or merge (i.e. deletion was excluded), I wonder if it's technically possible to reopen a vote for deletion for that article as you did --DarTar 23:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Save keep this option. Not every eclipse happens in the same places every year, and Eclipses are not that common. If they are, why are there only going to be two total eclipses between 2008 and 2010? I would like to have page dedicated to a specific eclipse that way its easier to find in search engines -Orioncali 5:57, 29 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orioncali (talk • contribs)
  • First, please start your comments at the bottom of the AfD rather than than put them into the middle of the AfD header itself like you just did. As for your argument, have a look at list of lunar eclipses – total lunar eclipses are not a terribly rare or unusual even. In a given 4 year period, there will typically be a string of 3-4, roughly 6 months apart, over a 1 1/2 year period, then 2 1/2 years of only partial eclipses. Each event will be visible anywhere in the world in which it is night at the time the eclipse takes place. That does not amount to a rare event by a long shot. Peter G Werner 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep or merge into single article lunar ecliopses are notable per se. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 23:10, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I just have to say, the occurrence of something is not a reliable indicator of notability. Hurricanes happen plenty of times a year, and probably get much less media coverage, but I can promise you that most of them will have articles, because they are an interesting event with reliable media coverage. That said, I think I'd rather personally see the articles done in a combined format, say, "Lunar eclipses from 1990-2000" and so on, with their articles remade into sections. This would allow people to gain more useful info from them than a table or list, while at the same time being easier to read and allowing a good place for pictures that represent them, and not having a wide array of articles that will probably never have any real content --lucid 23:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment According to the NASA the 28 August Eclipse was the deepest and longest in 7 years. I've updated the article accordingly quoting two distinct sources. --DarTar 00:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The original reason for this nomination isn't valid. The fact that such eclipses are not rare isn't a reason for deletion. Politicians and baseball players aren't rare but nobody deletes them because we've got twenty articles on other politicians already. These are scientifically significant events which get widespread media coverage and the more proper science on wikipedia the better in my opinion. Nick mallory 00:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as it obviously passes the standard criterion of being covered by multiple reliable sources. Beyond that, many references and reasons for notability have been added. This is a worthwhile article. -- Renesis (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to List of lunar eclipses. There is no more a need for articles on individual eclipses then there are for articles on individual solstices and equinoxes. DCEdwards1966 03:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I agree with both Edison and DeEdwards1966, it seems a worthwhile at a glance but who is going to remember this eclipse from when years go by? Merge to List of lunar eclipses.--PrestonH 03:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given by Nick mallory and Renesis. This event got substantial media coverage. Thin Arthur 05:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete. Wikipedia isn't a news guide. There is WikiNews for this type of thing. RobJ1981 05:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please make an effort to read the discussion before you reply. It was already very clearly said that we cannot transwiki this to Wikinews --lucid 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of lunar eclipses. There is nothing significant about this lunar eclipse over others. -- Whpq 20:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Okay, I finally found this page after improving the article. List of lunar eclipses is a great starting point, but specifics on each eclipse are interesting and worthy. I'd support one article for EVERY historical eclipse, if there's information and energy to give information about each. A lunar eclipse is a world-wide event, each visible around more than half the earth, with differences in the umbral appearance from the season and weather on earth. Nasa's summary graphics are great for "predictive" qualities, but post-eclipse observations are also worthy, even if just a gallery of good photos to compare. Just because we have a small start doesn't mean its unworthy to keep. Tom Ruen 00:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - certainly a notable event, and there is no justification to delete on the basis of notability. It IS a notable event, and should be kept.--Paaerduag 00:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It is indeed note-worthy, and the article's content is unique the eclipse and sourced. If it was to be deleted/merged maybe we could have a page for each year there are some eclipses and have a different section for each eclipse. If that still seems like too many article maybe an article for each decade detailing each eclipse therein? But I support keeping it. Cheers, Rothery 01:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC).
• comment we have two million articles we can afford to have two more a year. It should be totally unnecessary to compromise to fit in minute increments like this. The effort in maintaining the extra articles and the load on the servers will have proven much less than the time effort and server load wasted in bringing this afd and needing to defend. But lets hope it has at least educated the people who argued such things as that individual eclipses were not unique! goes to show how badly we need increased coverage of the really important things in the real world. DGG (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Educated? So far, the "keep" folks haven't managed to argue anything at all except that a lot of people apparently WANT articles on individual eclipses. I have yet to read any clear, concrete argument as to what exactly is "unique" about each total eclipse event. Nobody has answered my point about why, if each total lunar eclipse is a fantastically unique and notable event, why there are no articles about such events prior to 2007. And I'll point to this specific event again – the September 16, 1997 total lunar eclipse. I throw that out as a challenge. Why no article if this was a unique and notable event? Does anybody even remember this event and what was unique about it, even 10 year later? And I can tell the reason why nobody can recall what was unique about this event – it wasn't. And I don't think the August 28, 2007 total eclipse will be any more remembered in 10 years. And DGG, I have to say, the whole reason I think you're even arguing this point is out of a totally knee-jerk sense of inclusionism. I actually count myself as an inclusionist in my Wikipedia philosophy, but inclusion of articles like this push this idea to the point of utter ridiculousness. Peter G Werner 19:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment (reponse to Werner) - since "similar stuff exists" is not recognised as a convincing argument for keeping an article, then "similar stuff does not exist" is likewise not a convincing argument for deletion. Also, do not dismiss the fact that this discussion shows that a lot of people WANT articles on individual eclipses - this is fundamental, not irrelevant. It shows that there is a consensus forming here, which maybe needs to be recorded in a guideline that specifically defines a threshold of notability for astronomical events (in the same way as we have WP:NUMBER for articles on numbers). Gandalf61 10:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Are there actually people arguing we should be deleting articles because of server load, and hard disc space? Are there actually people arguing we should be keeping articles because of there isn't a problem with server load, and hard disc space? Evil Monkey - Hello 02:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not using the hard drive space argument. I'm aware Wikipedia isn't paper. I simply don't think having multiple articles on nearly identical events is at all a good idea. Peter G Werner 03:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I was replying to DGG, not your comment :-) He seems to be suggesting that since Wikipedia is not paper we shouldn't delete the article (and I want the article deleted as well you). Evil Monkey - Hello 05:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. They are sourced, notable, informative, and wiki is not paper, so why not? They don't have to be "particularly special or noteworthy" in my opinion, I see no reason to delete the articles. Melsaran (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Suggest the creation of articles on individual Saros cycle series. Once Saros cycle series 128 exists there would be no reason at all to keep this article, whilst at the same time preserving any noteable content, thus not restricting the event to one line of a table. BeL1EveR 10:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, unless or until an alternative solution is implemented. The event is notable enough to justify more than a line in a table, on the basis that many relatively minor hurricanes, floods and earthquakes justify their own articles, often despite similar or less media coverage. BeL1EveR 10:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment most minor hurricanes/typhoons, tropical storms and tropical depressions do not have articles and are just sections within their respective season pages. --Howard the Duck 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Still, there are a lot of articles on individual weather events. Looking quickly at Timeline of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season and Timeline of the 2006 Pacific typhoon season, I count over 20 separate articles on individual hurricanes, tropical storms and typhoons just in the 2006 season ! Gandalf61 17:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Well, everyone at our place still remembers Typhoon Xangsane (2006), while everybody probably forgot about the lunar eclipse. --Howard the Duck 00:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into a new article, for example, 21st century lunar eclipses and add info about others.--Svetovid 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (trying to be constructive in spite of the notability vs. non-notability discussions that risk to become pure metaphysics) Instead of debating about whether an eclipse is notable or unique per se, can we please look at the AfD proposal from the following angle. An article was proposed for deletion, in the meantime it has been expanded by several users with information that is detailed, well-formed according to WP guidelines, scientifically valid and supported by several references. Merging such an article in a long list of eclipses would simply be impossible because the list would immediately become unreadable. So the references, pictures and astronomical details (i.e., everything that makes the article worth keeping) should inevitably be dropped. So I'd like to ask frankly to those who still believe the article should be deleted as of the latest revision: do you really consider the information the article contains irrelevant/not worth being kept on WP? In my opinion what happened since the AfD was opened is precisely the opposite: an article that was still a stub (and as such more or less plausibly eligible for deletion) has now grown into a text with rich, detailed and authoritative information that I just can't see how people may ever want to delete. --DarTar 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This eclipse happens again? The same one? It has happened before, so apparently I can create an exact replica of this article for the 1989 eclipse (with some different photos). This doesn't seem to make it uniquely notable. How do scientists weight this? Does this particular eclipse have its own name, because if this is a cycle the potential is that a huge number of identical articles can be created. This new information seems to imply that each eclipse is not unique and is in fact the same as others, it would seem to me that this article is probably mistitled at the best and misleading at the worst. IvoShandor 23:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Eclipses repeat in patterns which are similar so grouped as numbered series. The Saros cycle, 18 years 10 days, but shift slightly. These shifts mean the series has a definite beginning and end, over hundreds of years and dozens of cycles. That's the geometry of the eclipse in a 3-body problem. However the orientation of the earth's rotation will be different, so it will repeat at a different time. Secondly photographs of two lunar eclipses from the same series MAY look very similar, but could also look different too - since the red light inside the shadow comes from refraction of light through the earth's atmosphere, so the existence and distribution of clouds will affect the darkness and color. It would certainly be interesting to compare photos eclipses of the same series, and their similiarities and differences are what make them interesting to observe and record. Tom Ruen 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. For Saros series, I have a quick reference of charts for each series and occurance. Each column is on 18 year period, and each row is a single saros series, so moving left to right shows a very slow progression of the moon's centering in the shadow from south to north. [8] My graphics are simple, not overly worthy of Wikipedia, but better than the Nasa ones, since it shows some of the stars and constellations a little. You can see the background stars shift ~10 degrees left between occurances. Tom Ruen 00:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - reply to Ivo Shandor - lunar eclipses that occur at equivalent places in the Saros cycle are not identical. The eclipse tracks will be different; the position of the Moon against the background of fixed stars will be different; visibility will be different. All that is the same is the relative positions of the Earth, Moon and Sun (and even that similarity is only approximate). Saros cycles are simply a convenient way of grouping lunar eclipses - you can think of them as being the astronomical equivalent of hurricane seasons. Gandalf61 09:25, 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 delete all. — TKD::Talk 05:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu

Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Expired prods that someone may find some value in keeping because of their relation to Monty Python, I'll let the community decide. I am also listing:

• Dennis Moore (Monty Python Character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Court Charades (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

-- Carlossuarez46 21:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - as prodder. They are all WP:PLOT failures, being nothing but descriptions of sketches that have no notability beyond the show. Monty Python is very notable but that notability is not inherited by every segment of every episode. Otto4711 22:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless real world sources giving notability are found Corpx 06:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:48, 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. KrakatoaKatie 10:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loo (comics)

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

This incredibly obscure character appeared in one-half of one issue of Lobo comics. Insufficiently notable for its own article. Konczewski 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge somewhere, I agree with the obscurity point you make, fails notability --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Oh yeah no way this meets WP:N or WP:VERI. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as a plausible typo of Lobo which is the only place this character should be mentioned anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 23:49, 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. KrakatoaKatie 10:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British terrorism and Pakistan

British terrorism and Pakistan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article should either be deleted outright, or be merged with Terrorism in the United Kingdom. This article violates WP:NOT by providing a list of quotes. A better place for this info would be Wikiquote. The article also violates WP:NPOV IP198 21:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge I dont think the content should be deleted, some of it is of use. The article itself meanwhile does not necessitate a page of its own --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's almost all quotes from elsewhere. And the title makes it sound to me like the Btris are terrorizing Pakistan. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Original Research, POV fork, unencyclopediac garbage.--Sefringle^Talk 05:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing of any real use -- Roleplayer 00:06, 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. CitiCat ^♫ 14:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable names in anime

Notable names in anime (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unfortunately, I have to conclude that this list is mostly original research because there are no reliable third-party sources referencing these individuals as "the most influential and notable names in anime." Membership on the list appears to be entirely based on the editors' discretion and will inevitably have problems with WP:NPOV. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: So fix it and add some references. Looking down the list, it shouldn't be too difficult to find references indicating notable status for these individuals. It's getting annoying to see articles being nominated which only need some references, especially by people who participate in a WikiProject specifically about the topic of the article in question. Rather than nominating such articles, it would be more productive, and a better use of everyone's time, if you instead tried to improve the articles, and only nominated those for which you could find no references. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This can't be "fixed" by adding references, because the choice of what references to use in order to decide "notability" (as defined by this article) will be original research itself. The use of the word "Notable" in the article's name shows it will always be a subjective article, since all people who have articles are notable by Wikipedia standards, so this is using some arbitrary measure to limit the names to the ones on the list. Crazysuit 04:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a little extreme. For just about any topic out there, a decision has to be made about what sources to use. That decision is never considered original research. Even with anime, there are those considered to be good references. You can see some here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have a better suggestion for a replacement word? "Notable" was likely used because it's something which can be easily and clearly shown through solid references. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't comparable to "just about any topic", since very few articles like this even exist. That is, articles that are entirely based on subjective opinions of who is "notable" or "important". Choosing sources is only original research when, in cases like this, those sources are being used to assert an opinion or a POV. Crazysuit 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with a category, as it is not for us to determine who is notable among the notables and who is not Corpx 06:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • A category wouldn't be a better choice in this case as it would be harder to control the entries. Besides, it would still require determination of who was notable and was not, so that isn't really a good argument. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I meant something like Category:Anime composers, not Category:Notable Anime Composers Corpx 06:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, there're already the various categories within Category:Anime industry. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
        • That's well sufficient :) Corpx 07:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as I've added some very reliable sources to back up the inclusion of many of the individuals in the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - sourced or not, the very concept here is inherently subjective. I don't see any reason for it to exist. Doceirias 03:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No more subjective than any other articles which contain sourced statements or attributions of notability for one reason or another. This article just happens to gather several individuals together, and it now has references for the notability of many of the individuals on the list. With the references, it certainly meets WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, and (at least for the individuals who have references) is no longer WP:OR as the attribution of notability is referenced and attributed to a reliable third party source. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Far more subjective. You can prove that those people are notable, but not that the list itself is worth having. Doceirias 05:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Regardless, all of the concerns expressed by Farix have been addressed. And the list is subjective only so far as any list or criteria for notability are subjective. All of the referenced individuals are clearly notable based on the references provided. I'm fine with removing others from the list until such time as reliable sources can be provided showing they are clearly notable. But saying that the list itself is worthless is absurd. It may be worthless to you (as you may not have any interest in the topic), but to someone seeking to research anime in general, the list is clearly an excellent starting point for seeing who are the best-regarded and most important names in the business. That's the whole point of an encyclopedia, isn't it? Provide good, sourced information that can be used to further research on a given topic? This list clearly meets all applicable criteria for being kept, so unless you can find something other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT for a reason, your argument has nothing solid on which to be based. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think you've addressed those concerns at all. This kind of article has no business on Wikipedia in the first place. This has nothing to do with arguments about how should be on the list and who should not be; I'm disputing the existence of the list itself as inherently unencyclopedic. It isn't the function of Wikipedia to tell readers who is important and who is not, but to tell them why someone is important and what they have done. This type of article belongs on some other website, and wikipedia is where readers of that article come looking for a specific name and further reading on that subject. Doceirias 05:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
          • This list is indeed worthless. Unless some kind of attribute can be applied, like awards, then the only purpose for this list is a subjective footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyuuA4 (talk • contribs)
• Keep' (and rename) I think the article has been unfortunately named. Can we rename it to something like "List of " or something. -- Taku 08:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Every description for each notable name can be brought over to their respective articles, if they're not there already. KyuuA4 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Doceirias, among others. It's patently a POV issue for Wikipedia to have a list of who is notable. (Not to mention redundant, since every person in the category "Anime Industry" should have been notable in order to have an article created around them). --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: since the biggest problem seems to be people having a problem with the title of the article, I have moved it to List of historically influential people in anime, which should be much more palatable to these individuals as it no longer has the apparently controversial word "notable" in the title. Is this acceptable? Can we agree that this kind of list can be easily maintained, referenced, etc., etc.? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • List of historically influential people in anime is worse, since "historically influential" is even more POV-based than "notable". It isn't just the name, it's the entire concept of this list that is the problem. Crazysuit 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not true. It's very easy to show who has been influential as you can reference articles stating that. This is the kind of thing that articles will often do when discussing the history of any particular subject: list those who have been influential in it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The list has a subjectively defined scope, therefore, it can't pass WP:OR. The intention of the list seems to be subjective so the scope cannot be redefined to be acceptable. Jay32183 18:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Let's assume for now that as wikipedia editors we can determine who is, or is not, notable in the field of anime. What, then, is the purpose of this article? Particularly notable names can be included in the main Anime article, and all names which meet notability criteria can have their own articles, which can be added to an appropriate category. I don't think that "List of notable X" in general makes a good class of article. Where is the reliable source stating that notability is notable? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Without reliably-sourced and unambiguous statements of membership criteria, this does not pass WP:LIST. Cool Hand Luke 14:36, 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wilbur Scott

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

The article does not prove the subject's notability and, despite the claim that the subject has made over 55 films, I could not find any independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. In fact, the only actual mentions seem to be the IMDB page, which identifies only two films directed by the subject, and the person's personal webpage on Angelfire, which fails the "independence" criterion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless significant coverage about him is found Corpx 06:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. There is so little coverage on this — I can't even find "I went to see this movie" blog posts on the individual movie titles — that I think this may be some kind of hoax — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete NN. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete as discussed above. VisitorTalk 19:57, 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. Keep arguments do not address concerns. CitiCat ^♫ 14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nyomi Marcela

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Epbr123 20:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless awards/nominations/notability is found Corpx 06:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. She is a well-known adult film actress. -- Trojanian 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Being well-known is not the same as being notable. Epbr123 09:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Preserve. She is a well-known porn actress. --Kaaveh 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Where's the evidence that she's well-known? I just knew someone would copy Trojanian's comment if I didn't rebut it straight away. Epbr123 09:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. While she is well-known, that's not quite the same as notable folks. If you're going to argue for her article being kept, you need to provide some evidence of notability. Tabercil 23:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Cool Hand Luke 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Relisted because one user expressed strong opposition on my talk page. Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melody Max

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Epbr123 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless awards/nominations/notability is found Corpx 06:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Tabercil 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. 47 films, in the porn industry is almost nothing. --Evb-wiki 15:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. <joke>Although a picture of her could change my vote.</joke> Zouavman Le Zouave 16:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, she is noted for beginning a trend in pornography. and that is totally a valid ctiteria to perserve. --Kaaveh 01:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And exactly what trend is it that she has begun? The article doesn't suggest such a thing. --Evb-wiki 01:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Half Persian, half French, all trivial. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:09, 15 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Louie Brewery Company

Lake Louie Brewery Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local Brewery. No assertion of notability at all, no sources at all on the page, and no reliable sources can be found on google news search New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 19:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable. ~ Wikihermit 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree, doesnt assert notability --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Regretful delete, as a major beer afficionado. The problem is that this brewery is not yet notable - but if they are looking to distribute beyond their part of Wisconsin (or if I happen off that way), I look forward to trying some of their brews. Good luck, guys. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: nice beer list, bad article. --Gavin Collins 12:53, 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 13:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automativox

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

Article has been speedy deleted in the past, but has reappeared, so raising an AFD. Article doesn't give any details of notability, per WP:CORP, no mention of it within secondary sources in the article. Had a look myself for such references to avoid the AFD but couldn't find any. Oscarthecat 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC) WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:CORP. NN plus advert. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 04:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of 3rd party coverage Corpx 06:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Oscarthecat, as reserection has has not improved the company's notability. --Gavin Collins 12:03, 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 Bat-merge into the Bat-belt. (I tried to make a cute "holy hannah"-like quip before the template, but the software won't let me. I'm sad. - KrakatoaKatie 10:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batrope

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

Articles is too insignificant to warrant a seperate entry. Can be best discussed under Batman or Batman's utility belt. Konczewski 19:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Bat-Merge to Batman's utility belt - No reason to have a separate article. --Hnsampat 20:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Batman's belt has its own article? The Green Lantern just rolled his eyes. MarkBul 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment He can mock Batman because he has his Power ring (weapon) ... --Dhartung | Talk 00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 21:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge only because it's so well-referenced. --Dhartung | Talk 00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Holy fancruft, Batman!!! Merge anything useful to Batman's utility belt. DCEdwards1966 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. Thin Arthur 05:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 18:03, 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 I can has redirected this to image macro. No real sourcing for this, nowhere near the notability of lolcat which is marginal, and Minazo will almost certainly be deleted. ELIMINATORJR 22:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lolrus

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

A lolrus is a lolcat, only with Walruses. Has none of the references or proof of notability that lolcat has, and that's saying something. Only sources relate to the identity of the animal in the original photo. Previous nom was in May 2004; the deleted revisions are no longer available, but it looks as though the old page was likely unrelated. -- Vary | Talk 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Lolcat (or bucket, one of the two - probably the former works better) - this meme is just one part of the whole lolanimal thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article -- this article provides information explaining a particular meme, its origin, and historical background only relevant to this meme and its relationship to other lol-memes and historical events, namely the elephant seal Minazo and his death in 2006.Aharon 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Is it can be deletz tiem now plz? No real sources, no indication of significance. Even if these were present, a mention at List of Internet phenomena would be sufficient. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Lolcat as per above. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 05:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - if we are just merge and keep the content anyway, whats the point of deleting it in the first place? - Fosnez 07:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Because then it wouldn't be a proper merge. The point of merging is to salvage small amounts of content from articles that shouldn't exist in their own right. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• I can has redirect pleez? To lolcat ok? Few reliable secondary sources independent of teh subject = ROFLCOPTER Eleland 11:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• NEEDS MOAR RELIABLE SOURCEZ. Redirect (to lolcat). Italia^vivi 19:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Aharon and not paper Cleanup, get some sources. expand. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Any suggestion where to find sources, or should we fabricate a few? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• The reason why lolrus should not be merged with lolcat is because both lolcat and lolrus are two separate examples of an image macro. In other words, the image macro article is the parent, and both lolrus and lolcat are its children. I can find some more sources, no problem. Another alternative is to create a new article for Minazo, the elephant seal that was the source of the lolrus image macro, and add the relevant lolrus information there. Information under lolcat is only relelvant as another example of an image macro similar in a way to lolcat. I still think we should keep the article though. the lolrus meme and the lolrus saga needs explaining as it is now separate from lolcat.Aharon 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'd appreciate a little feedback on which section needs more sources. The sections I added on the origin of the meme have sources.Aharon 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• I've done some editing to the page, such that the sources are clearly identified as references in a references section.Aharon 20:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to encourage you to strike out one or the other of your bolded comments. [9] [10] While editors may make as many comments as they like in an afd, they can only make one bolded recommendation, and adding more than that can be considered vote stacking seen as an attempt to skew the discussion in your favor. Thanks.

I do see that you've created a reference section, but there are still no reliable sources for the phenomenon itself (no, I'm afraid Icanhascheezeburger and the like aren't going to work for our purposes.) As for creating an article on the seal in the original photo (which I see you've already done, but never mind,) you should probably take the time to read through the notability guidelines. We look for reliable sources first, because without them we can't even begin to judge whether or not an article should stay on wikipedia, but that's not the only thing an article needs to survive an afd. -- Vary | Talk 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback and the tip concerning bolded comments -- I apologize and appreciate the correction. Not certain why icanhascheezburger would not be considered a reliable source since it is at the epicenter of the lolrus (and of course, lolcat) phenomena. That site is a relevant source for this article. I'd also add that I am not the sole author of this article. This afd only hit while I was editing and adding to the article.Aharon 03:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The sourcing appears adequate, here. • Lawrence Cohen 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Which sources do you think allow the article to pass WP:WEB? That is, which of the sources are both reliable and feature lolruses as the primary subject? -- Vary | Talk 15:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:WEB: *Notability "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception... (Notable) content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Lolrus is now the subject of innumerable blog posts, as well as having been referenced in an article in Time Magazine (albert the same article that desribed the lolcat phenomena). While the blog posts may not be considered "reliable sources", the Time Magazine article itself had factual errors (e.g. referring to the lolrus as a walrus instead of as an elephant seal). Right now, this article is the probably the single best source of accurate information on the lolrus on the Internet. Should this article first be published outside wikipedia so that it can then be referenced in a wikipedia article as a reliable source? Obviously (I think), WP:WEB needs to be taken with a grain of salt when considering neologisms and internet memes.Aharon 16:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this article is the best source (read: praticaclly the only source) of information on the subject is exactly the problem. Nothing should be published here first. And if we took WP:WEB with a 'grain of salt' every time someone creates an article on a meme, we'd be overrun with meme articles. If this meme is such a big deal, there will be plenty of reliable publications that give it more than a name check soon enough, and then it might be appropriate for there to be an article here.

Further, I think you're misreading 'multiple, non-trivial published works' here. The blog mentions are multiple and non-trivial (ie, there are lots of them and they're entirely about the article's subject) but they're not 'published'. The Time magazine is published, but the mention is trivial. That makes lolruses notable enough for a passing mention in other articles (such as lolcat) but not yet worth a whole article. There just isn't enough content out there, as you pointed out. -- Vary | Talk 16:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Or rather, there's plenty of content, but the manner in which it is "published" defines whether or not it is acceptable as a wikipedia article. If this were indeed the case I imagine that there will be many many more articles on wikipedia that will be pruned -- and wikipedia will be less interesting and useful as a result.Aharon 19:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Yes, I'm sure there are other articles on wikipedia that should not be here for the same reasons that this one should not, but right now we're not talking about those. And if given the choice between being boring in your opinion and publishing what amounts to an original essay on a non-notable meme, I'll take boring and non-trivial any day. -- Vary | Talk 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. My point however was not to indicate that this article is trivial like other articles on wikipedia (that's your subjective opinion). I consider lolrus to be non-trivial like many other wikipedia articles, and it's deletion would make wikipedia less interesting and useful.Aharon 18:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not about my opinion. This article does not satisfy WP:WEB. That's not subjective, it's objective. To satisfy wp:web there would need to be (say it with me) multiple, non-trivial sources from reliable publications. There aren't. Arguing that those problems should be overlooked because the article is useful and 'informative' amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. This meme currently fails wikipedia's notability guidelines. That is why I nominated it for deletion, not because of my personal feelings on the matter. -- Vary | Talk 21:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I see multiple non-trivial sources). Not enough for a featured article or long article, but long enough to be kept certainly. Also redirect Minazo here, the subject of the Warlus meme, and you have more than enough sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minazo (2nd nomination) • Lawrence Cohen 19:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources, and why aren't they in the article? The sources from Minazo are about the animal, not the meme. In order to pass WP:WEB this article needs to have more than one article in a reliable publication (ie not a blog) that is primarily about this specific meme. Right now it doesn't, and pointing at the obit for Minazo is not going to make up for that. -- Vary | Talk 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I HAS A REDIRECT TO LOLCAT! As it has been stated above, it is just another part of the animal macro meme.Zuxtron 03:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, while a lolrus and a lolcat are both image macros, a lolrus is not a lolcat, so it makes no sense to redirect lolrus to lolcat. The lolcat article is not a general article for all animal macro memes.Aharon 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I am very impressed by how much this page has improved over the last few days. It is now very well-sourced, allowing the reader to use Wikipedia as a launching-point for more substantial research using traditional media. The Lolrus has clearly moved beyond the internet, and can no longer be considered too trivial to deserve an article. --M@rēino 04:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well sourced? It is not sourced at all. I'd really like one person who's supported keeping the article to please show exactly how this article passes WP:WEB. What 'traditional media' sources does this article lead the reader to? If your argument for keeping is that you don't care that it doesn't pass the notability guidelines, please say so, but don't point to sources that don't exist as justification. The only reliable source that on the subject is a passing mention in an article on lolcats; that mention, in its entirety:

"The I HAS A BUCKET lolrus, starring a tragic walrus deprived of its only possession, is threatening to spin off into a freestanding meme in its own right."

So the only reliable source that even acknowledges that there is such a thing as a lolrus says that it is threatening to become a separate meme, but isn't one yet. All the 'I like it' in the world isn't going to help that. -- Vary | Talk 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Vary, read the article! It does indeed cite to traditional media: Time Magazine, the Minazo CDs, and Japan Times. Which, incidentally, is a good sign that an article is notable: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."--M@rēino 00:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reliable source that relates directly to the meme is the one liner from the Time article on lolcats. One line in an article about another subject is pretty much the definition of trivial. The others are non-trivial, but they're about the Minazo, not the meme, so they don't fly either. For subject X to pass wp:web, there need to be multiple published sources that are entirely about subject X (and not just about subjects related to X). -- Vary | Talk 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way: if I were to start a blog about my personal opinions on a given political figure, and that blog was mentioned briefly in a longer article on political blogs, I couldn't cite that mention and a bunch of articles on said political figure, and use it to justify starting a wikipedia article on my blog; the first mention is trivial, the second is not about the content itself. So citing sources that relate only to the political figure him or herself might be perfectly appropriate for an article about the blog, to provide context for the opinions it expresses, but they could not be used to pass wp:web. -- Vary | Talk 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Alright. Well, let's just say that I'm an inclusionist and you're a deletionist. Beyond that philosophical difference, it's hard for me to disagree. --M@rēino 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Woah, there. I am not a deletionist. I'm in favor of deleting the article because it's sourced primarily from blogs and fails wp:web. It's not a 'philosophical' matter. Not to snap at you or anything, but I do not like those labels. Invoking inclusionism/deletionism in an afd debate reduces the argument to "I like it" vs. "I don't like it." -- Vary | Talk 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. No need to resort to labels. Vary's just doing due dilligence on the articles here. Those working to make the lolrus article wikipedia-worthy can be thankful of the work of fellow wiki users (even wiki admins such as Vary) helping to improve the articles. Let's keep this discssion about lolrus and not about Vary, wiki admins, or wikipedia's evolved (in/ex)clusionary guidelines. Basically, Vary thinks that since the lolrus (itself) hasn't been the subject of its own article (independent of lolcats, i.e. what she calls "sourced") that it is trivial. In other words, she is saying that if lolrus was the subject of a few articles in the print media, that it would meet the notability guidlines in WP:WEB, that it would properly be recognized as non-trivial, and thus no longer under threat of imminent deletion. Correct? Meanwhile, other folks here are arguing to keep the article on the basis that the sources provided in the context of the lolrus article concerning the origin of the lolrus are sufficient to meet WP:WEB for the whole lolrus article (and thus non-trivial). Having said that, I agree with rēino that the article meets WP:WEB in that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The objection to Vary's argument isn't personal -- it simply finds Vary's approach to WP::WEB to be overly strict, in regards to lolrus but I think that is because her argument is focused on *a* lolrus as *a type*, instead of as *the* lolrus as *a meme* with an origin and context that has been sourced in all of the media prviously mentioned in the above arguments (and referenced in the article). Nothing personal! Aharon 15:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Which sources do you consider non-trivial published works about the content iteslf, please? The sources on the 'context' of the meme are not about the meme, they're about the same thing the meme is about. So your opinion that they allow the content to pass wp:web seems to be based on a flawed understanding of that guideline. -- Vary | Talk 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it is definitely based on a different understanding of that guideline. The "non-trivial" sources: music CDs by Merzbow, the untimely death of Minazo reported in the Japan Times, and finally, the mention in Time and slate.com. Contrary to your view, I believe that the context of the meme is indeed about the meme. Since this subtle point is the core disagreement in our argument, I think we may be at an impasse until a source is generated that fulfills your understanding of the WP:WEB guideline.Aharon 15:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is exactly one reliable source that even mentions the word 'lolrus.' None of those sources you've mentioned are about the content any more than an article on George Bush is about a blog expressing personal opinions of him. Those guidelines were very carefully written so that there can be no problems with interpretation, and by saying that your 'understanding' of the guideline permits sources about the identity of the animal in the photograph allow the meme to pass wp:web you seem to be overlooking a key phrase: the content itself. . -- Vary | Talk 15:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• That is because the lolrus existed prior to being called the lolrus. Originally the lolrus was simply Minazo performing his trademark pose with bucket. Minazo became notable as soon as Merzbow made a tribute album to him, and then additionally so when his images became the inspiration for the lolrus saga. Would you merge lolrus with Minazo?Aharon 16:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I might be in favor of that merge, if Minazo was notable, but that article is well on its way to being deleted. Are you in favor of merging to Minazo? If your argument is that this article is really about an animal, and not a meme, then will you accept that this article should be deleted if the article on the animal is?

Notability is not inherited. The albums may or may not pass wp:music, I haven't checked too closely. But either way, the notability of a work does not automatically transfer to its subject, as evidenced by the afd debate on said subject. And it certainly does not make a meme about their subject notable.

Your argument here seems to be recursive; the meme is notable because its about a notable animal, who is notable because there's a meme about him. The sources you are using to claim that the article passes wp:web are only relevant to the article Minazo; and even there, consensus seems to be that they're not enough to establish notability. This article is not about the animal: see the opening sentence: "A Lolrus is an image macro with a picture of a whiskered sea mammal often referencing a wistful relationship with a bucket." The intro doesn't even mention the animal. This article is about the meme. Any sources used to prove its notability also need to be about that meme. That is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. -- Vary | Talk 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• The article to my mind is about both the meme and the animal. One should not be separated from the other. The irony is that Minazo died a famous performance animal in captivity and was resurrected as a famous albeit anonymous meme. With the deletion of this article (and the Minazo article), his bucket will indeed be lost...Aharon 14:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's about both of them, then both of them need to be sourced. But your argument that 'Minazo is the lolrus' is spurious: the into to the article does not even mention Minazo. The image currently in the article isn't even of him. And how many of these are of Minazo?

But even if 'Lolrus' and 'Minazo' were synonymous, it's irrelevant if the Minazo sources are not even enough to prop up Minazo. This AFD is a mess and will very likely end in a no consensus once someone gets around to closing it, but there still hasn't been any reason given for keeping the article other than "I Like It!" or a claim that it's well sourced that isn't backed up by any actual sources. So I ask you again: since the only solid sources that have been provided relate only to Minazo, and not to his 'second life' as a meme, will you agree that this article should be deleted as non-notable if the article Minazo, which uses the same sources, is? -- Vary | Talk 16:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Both articles should be kept, obviously. Minazo is the ur-lolrus. All later lolruses simply continue the saga of the lolrus with the likeness of Minazo and his bucket. In platonic terms, there is only one true form of the lolrus, all others are variations on the theme of the first lolrus. This is why a saga exist for the lolrus which stems from the first lolrus. Perhaps this needs to be clarified in the article?Aharon 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless something extremely unexpected happens, Minazo will not be kept. This one may be kept by default just because of the sheer weight of more or less unsupported 'keep' arguments, but the meme still fails wp:web, and no amount of selective interpretation of that guideline is going to change the fact. You can 'clarify' all you want, but it's not going to fix the complete absence of any verifiability for the word 'lolrus'. -- Vary | Talk 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what? You're not saying anything new and your comments are getting more and more absurd. It was amusing for a while, but I'm frankly tired of watching you trying to make something so completely inane sound important (and talk your way around the lack of references) by using impressive-sounding words: talking about platonic idealism and calling Minazo the 'ur-lolrus', of all things? You're a very silly person and I'm not going to talk to you anymore. -- Vary | Talk 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I know I started it but it was very much intended as a stub and, having just come back to read what it's become, i've learnt a lot which i'm sure a lot of other people will also be interested in. I feel it now has easily enough information on the lolrus phenomenon to be worth a whole article, and i really dont think it should be merged with lolcat because, while it may have had its origins in lolcats, it is now very much its own meme with its own conventions. Bjakt 12:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not about how much information the article has, but about whether that information is sourced, which it isn't. -- Vary | Talk 12:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article already has more references than Christiaan Barnard. Wikipedia's standards for references and notability are essentially arbitrary and meaningless. People might be interested in the lolrus meme; server space is cheap, ergo, you should keep this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.93.73 (talk) 05:16, 5 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 by clear consensus. In the end, it came down to this: if this were any kind of referenced, detailed analysis of the impact Bruce Lee had on different cultures around the world in different decades and years, that would be one thing, but that's not what this article is. Instead, it's a hodge-podge list, no doubt incomplete, of various times his name has been mentioned on TV or film or print. It's not educational, it's not helpful, and it's not encyclopedic. KrakatoaKatie 10:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Lee and popular culture

Bruce Lee and popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A cluttered trivial list that seems poorly sourced as well. Sourcing can be fixed: but overall this type of list isn't very useful. A list of very random mention isn't notable. Perhaps this would be better at a Bruce Lee wiki (if one exists) ? RobJ1981 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as indiscriminate collection of information in a loosely-associated list. Useight 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, another culturecurft list. Realkyhick 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, ok, Bruce Lee has been mentioned in some movies, it doesn't mean there needs to be listcruftic page about it. Dannycali 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete More trivia-ish only article.--JForget 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per loosely associated topics/trivia Corpx 06:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article was expanded from a section of Bruce Lee article. If this article is deleted, then such "trivia" information would start to pop up eventually on main Bruce Lee article. --RockyMM 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Keeping junk off the main page is not a reason to keep this so-called article. Dannycali 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the argument given for deletion are : a/ not useful--irrelevant, we provide information, not practical advice. b/ 'cluttered" I interpret that as meaning contains a good deal of content, I fail to see how the organization or lack of it in an article is a reason for deletion. c/ "poorly sourced" but the nom. admits it can be fixed. d/ "trivial" -- anyone can say that about anything -- it will be trivial to some people and not others, so it amounts to IDONTLIKEIT e/ "very random mentions" either that means a desire for more complete content, or a statement that some of the information is more important than others, both editing questions.DGG (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • OK... so what's your argument for keeping the article. ILIKEIT? You don't give any rationale whatsoever. -- Kicking222 02:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why I don't personally like it, actually. I couldn't care less about BL, or about the part of popular culture influenced by his work. I'm one of the unenlightened who have never actually seen his films, and hope to never see one. But I know the many articles in WP on them show how they are important to many WPedians and that they are within our scope. So WP should cover them, and the significant things about them. The significant things about a movie include the references to other films. (and similarly for other media), and their reception by the public. Their importance is shown by their mention in reviews--which do have to be added--or do you truly doubt reviews compare with other films? Things of significance in the world are encyclopedic if there is enough information to write an article. WP is a general encyclopedia covering what I like and what I dont like. And if you want to see how I apply this to things I know about more, look at the other AfDs. There have been more than enough of them and I've said enough too, more than should have been necessary. The deletors repeat the same arguments each time--does that mean I should paste in the same words also? I am not responsible for adding all the necessary content to WP, so dont suggest i must do so. But I have do feel a certain responsibility to try to prevent wanton destruction. DGG (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep what does it matter to all those sayin delete if this part of bruce lee is kept it doesnt affet you and hell i found it to be really good and interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.249.8 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A bunch of unrelated, unnecessary, non-notable trivia. If this was an article about Bruce Lee's actual impact on pop culture, then we'd be looking at a different issue. But this is simply a loose collection of characters that have some of Lee's qualities and films that mention him. That's not the type of article we need on WP, and I'd argue that there is absolutely nothing (or, at least, next-to-nothing) that would even be worth merging into his main article. -- Kicking222 02:22, 1 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 keep. KrakatoaKatie 10:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology and other religions

Scientology and other religions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Scientologycruft and possible POV fork, as some of this material originally came from the Scientology article (where it was already in dispute). This article takes Scientology, props it up and makes it stand there as we go through a seemingly random list of religions, one at a time, and basically does little more than state that each of them have said negative things about Scientology at one time or another. (Well, duh.) I could do the same thing with, say, Woody Allen and other actors, or Britney Spears and other pop stars. It's flawed from its basic fundamental premise. wikipediatrix 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

comment: I wanted to summarize it in the Scientology article because the article itself was too long. I didn't disput the content of the section. It was a consensus there to move the content into a new article to reduce the size of the Scientology article. This article is mainly criticle because it is from the section "Controversy and Critism". If it would be deleted here it may be introduced in the Scientology article again what only stresses the length of the Scientology article wich is already too long. -- Stan _talk 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It looks like there is significant referencing and notability here. (10) references and it is a most intriguing read as well. Shinealight2007 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC).
• Weak delete. Disguised POV fork. Realkyhick 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a POV fork with issues of original research, and seems to be somewhat promotional in nature. Almost weasel flavored. Best left on the Scientology web site, and kept off of Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Change vote to keep. I'm still not sure where the rules lie on this, and my concerns about OR and POV still stand - but if there are rules against forking like this, I'm more than happy to ignore them given these circumstances. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep - a consensus was already established to create this new article here. The argument "POV fork" is ridiculous because a lot of critical stuff was removed from the Scientology article due to establishing this article and summarization there is only possible as long we don't delete the content here. Alleged POV in this article can be corrected instead of deleting everything.-- Stan _talk 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Valid point, but I'll reserve the right to change my mind pending whether this concensus you note can be accepted for the purpose. I'm all for it, but I'm not sure what policy sez about it. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Ideally, however, this should be renamed, as the phrase "other religions" makes Scientology sound like a religion.(RookZERO 00:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

You are WAY out of line here. Your opinion of Scientology's validity (or not) as a religion is irrelevant to this AfD. wikipediatrix 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is actually relevant, as such. Wikipedia needs to present a worldview, and as such, be cognizant of the characterizations of not just the United States, but also of other such relevant countries with regard to the organization of Scientology as Germany, France, England, etc. Shinealight2007 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

It's not really that relevant. Wikipediatrix' point here was pretty well outlined - and the scope of this AfD is not to decide whether Scientology is a religion, regardless of how others feel about it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but I think RookZero's point was probably moreso that the title of this article could be changed, not to establish anything about the Scientology organization within this AfD. Shinealight2007 02:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

Comment. AfDs not infrequently retitle articles where appropriate. That might be called for here. It might be more in line with a global perspective, in which Scientology is often considered a philosophy (ie in Israel), a for-profit business (ie Britain, Germany, et al), or a banned cult (ie Greece et al). Simply calling it a religion assumes that US tax status is equivalent to an end of all other views.(RookZERO 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Indeed, this is true, but general rule is that a move should be kept in the talk page of an article. My opinion here is that we should talk about whether this fork can stand on its own, and then if it can, then we can discuss whether this name or another is appropriate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this article seems to be two articles cohabitating: 1 about Scientology's purported position on the ability to be a member in good standing of it and another religion, and 2 about what other religions' views are of Scientology. If kept, it should be split because those are really very different topics to an external viewer (I don't know much about Scientology, but what a religion's precepts are should be a wholly different article than what other religions' views of those precepts are or of the religion in general). Sources could likely be found for similarly negative reactions from most of the other religions about Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, and no doubt many more. Carlossuarez46 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Carlos, that's a whole new can of worms here. Is such a thing valid for Wikipedia? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a can of worms, but not new here: first we have a series of which the current article is perhaps a part: Hinduism and other religions, Islam and other religions, Christianity and world religions, then there's the side-by-sides: Judaism and Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Islam and Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism, and there there are surveys of the subject: Religious pluralism, Comparative religion. I would think that one religion's views on the precepts and practices of another religion that are reported in WP:RSes is valid - it's included in numerous articles already Judaism's view of Jesus, Mary (mother of Jesus), Transubstantiation, God, etc. Carlossuarez46 20:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's true that this material doesn't belong in the main Scientology article, since it is basically about the beliefs of other religious organizations with regards to Scientology. However, it is reasonably well-cited, with references to scholarly articles, media sources, and legal documents. The matter is prima facie notable, since it has been repeatedly covered in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, the proposal to delete it is mere capitulation to (if not cooperation with) the Church of Scientology's continuing efforts to whitewash the facts of its history. Wikipedia does not cooperate with an organization's desire to whitewash its reputation. --FOo 03:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge whatever is deemed appropriate, but I do not see a need to comparehow one religion thinks about another religion. This inherently leads to synthesis Corpx 06:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

it is not so much about "how one religion thinks about another religion" but more about the claim that Scientology is compatible with other religions. I agree that we don't need an article wich states that parishioners of one religion don't belief in stuff from another religion but the claim of compatibility may be worth mentioning.-- Stan _talk 19:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are articles like Hinduism and other religions and Islam and other religions, so there is certainly room for an article even beyond debunking the claims of compatibility.(RookZERO 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Both the articles you mention are atrociously written, filled with unsourced material and OR, and littered with multiple complaint tags from multiple editors. Just because Bad Article X currently exists doesn't mean Bad Article Y gets a free pass. wikipediatrix 20:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Scientology is too big a subject to be contained in one article, therefore it is necessary to create forks. That some forks will appear to be POV is in the nature of subject matter such as this, and merging with related content (if such could be found) will only cause confusion. LessHeard vanU 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge or possibly rename to Criticism of Scientology by real religions. Thin Arthur 05:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, do us all a favor and don't be a dick. We aren't here to discuss whether this is really a religion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The POV problem can be addressed by also moving the positive items on Scientology and other religions out of the main articles to this one. AndroidCat 13:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep of course it is POV, all religous comparision is POV. That doesn't mean it should be deleted. Concerns are not enough to warrent deletion. See also Islam and other religions, Christianity and world religions, both are legitimate articles.--Sefringle^Talk 05:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep per sefrigle, couldn't say it better. ThuranX 07:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Shinealight2007. Perhaps it could be retitled, along the lines of the example provided by Sefringle, Scientology and world religions, thus obviating the concerns about "other"? Robertissimo 14:01, 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 keep. — TKD::Talk 05:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiona bowie

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

Non-notable artist. No sources provided, cannot verify; only relevant Google hit is her own website (which, curiously, isn't linked in this article). Article appears to be promotional. Realkyhick 19:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: Nomination withdrawn, move to keep. Numerous relevant and reliable sources have been provided and properly cited, and notability now seems to be apparent. Barring any objections, I ask that this discussion be administratively closed. Realkyhick 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources have been added to this page that dispute the above comment by Realkyhick. Relevant google hits provided. Bibliography added. Recent Exhibition History added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliphost005 (talk • contribs) 20:29, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

• COI advisory. Based on the username, User:Sliphost005 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) may be affiliated with the article subject. —C.Fred (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm a bit curious as to how you came to that conclusion from the user name, but in any event the author is apparently a single-purpose account. Realkyhick 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Could it be perhaps that the name "Sliphost" actually appears in the article? Just a guess :) --WebHamster 10:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You copied and pasted in some other site's words. That has been removed. Corvus cornix 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - The submitted references, although none of them give in-depth reviews on her work, do demonstrate that her work has been included in various exhibitions. There doesn't seem to be any under her own name but rather as a part of larger exhibitions, hence the 'weak keep'.--WebHamster 10:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I've gone through and did an initial cleanup/wikification, including moving the article to its proper name, and formating the refs (note, rough format only, they need to be gone through more carefully and put into WP:CITET format). Given the quanity of exhibitions plus her other activities (curating, teaching, writing), backed up by numerous refs, I believe that this easily meets our notability standards. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes indeed, a major improvement from the original article. As you can see above, I've withdrawn the nomination. Realkyhick 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Akradecki. Exhibition record and third-party references are sufficient for notability. COI issues aside, it's looking better. Freshacconci 20:46, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur Idiots

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

Delete unsourced non-notable movies, was tagged speedy but movies aren't in the A7 bucket. Carlossuarez46 19:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. And I wish movies were in the A7 bucket. Realkyhick 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This is basically a series of home movies, and home movies are not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless your name is Pamela Anderson of course :) --WebHamster 10:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete at once. I don't get why movies (and records, ...) aren't in the speedy criteria, as this one has no reason for surviving here even for five days. Fram 14:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Records kind of fit under {{db-band}}. Movies...well, methinks we should discuss this at the talk page for CSD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:55, 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 purge. DS 18:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Beat Movie

Contested prod, tagged speedy because "Blatantly non-notable film (entire article speaks of non-notability); plot summary is nonsensical; apparent vanity page (article created, maintained, and defended by a user who is credited as scriptwriter/cameraman/actor for the movie, with few contributions from others); two previous PRODs have been reverted without discussion or explanation, one by an anonymous user, one by the aforementioned user.", I declined speedy because movies are technically not A7 candidates, but I agree that this is nn and should be deleted Carlossuarez46 18:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Screams of an amateur film, created by filmmakers as vanity page. As the project was never even filmed, it seems pointless to have an article on it.Tx17777 18:57, 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, though, as noted, references and cleanup would be a good idea. — TKD::Talk 05:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thornlea Secondary School

Thornlea Secondary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

For a long time the article has failed WP:NOR, and they're non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 18:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless third-party sources can be found to address the nominator's valid concerns. Jakew 18:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete common garden-variety secondary school - not notable. MarkBul 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep badly in need of refs/pruning, but that is no reason to delete a page. High schools are unquestionably enecyclopedic subjects. - SimonP 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment/Question Frankly, I've often wondered whether schools deserve their own articles -- often for precisely this sort of reason: abundant OR and a general absence of citations and sources. But is someone proposing a wholesale closeout of school articles? If so, be prepared for a great hue and cry. If not, what differentiates this article from a thousand like it? As celebrated jurist Lionel Hutz once put it, "There are plenty of people just as guilty as my client: why pick on him"? --Rrburke^(talk) 19:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:WAX: Lots of articles exist that shouldn't. This one really deserves to be deleted. GreenJoe 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

While in principle I agree, I wish you looooooooooots of luck getting any kind of consensus to delete schools. Bearcat 07:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but severely rewrite. I think we've established by convention that high schools are notable by default, but this article has major, major OR problems and is way too long for a school of this stature. Realkyhick 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think that will get done. It's been tagged many times. GreenJoe 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also be open to deleting the article (to get rid of the history) and re-creating as a stub. GreenJoe 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Where is the evidence for consensus to keep all schools? All cities are notable - all streets are not. Without an explicit statement, the burden is on the article to prove notability. MarkBul 20:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. An established precedent does effectively count as de facto policy, even in the absence of an explicit policy statement, unless someone can come up with a convincing reason why the article in question doesn't qualify under the precedent. Bearcat 07:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking any verification of notability with reliable, independent sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a Google search indicates that the article is perfectly expandable and verifiable. There is enough within the article that is notable. TerriersFan 04:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 04:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this article needs improvement but that is not a reason to delete the article. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable alumni are sufficient to justify a high school as being notable. DGG (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per alumni - Fosnez 07:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is in need of a cleanup but a search indicates it can potentially pass WP:N and WP:V. Camaron1 | Chris 10:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Eusebeus 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Though it needs some cleanup, reasonably notable school. It serves a large student body (1800), and book was written about it, as well as chapter in an organizational development book. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable by virtue of being a school, and for some of the specific achievements listed above. Needs work, not deletion. --Gpollock 17:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep article makes explicit claims of notability, and there are reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the [{Wikipedia:Notability]] standard. Article needs to be significantly pruned and reformatted to put it into a more encyclopedic tone and in Wikipedia format. Alansohn 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It certainly is notable as it was a prototype school in the whole region to minimize outside distraction (but this design failed). Last year's top graduating student scores the highest in the York Region. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N. I was under the impression that notability isn't inherited. Doesn't this apply to the alumni-school relationship? --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep per Alansohn. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • A view of the other participants in this and other similar AfDs will show that this impression is mostly incorrect. It is true that attendance at a notable school, such as this one, does not make all alumni of the school notable. However, there is very clear consensus that one factor in demonstrating the notability of a school is the notability of its alumni. A school, especially a high school like this one, plays a crucial role in establishing and molding the future notable, be it as a politician, athlete, scientist, actor or musician. Contrary to the argument espoused by an adamant, but very small, minority, it is explicitly the school's role in fashioning notable alumni that is one of the many factors that demonstrates a school's notability. After all, the school isn't "inheriting" notability; it's a big part of creating the notability in the first place. Alansohn 23:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'm willing to accept that. (So long as it's not a "This is where Famous Person X went" article, which this doesn't appear to be. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It is true that some editors use notable, ahem "notable" alum to justify keeping these otherwise wholly unnotable schools, but it is a logical contrivance, pablum and little else besides. Unless there is a clear, substantive correlation between an individual's notability and their school (and at that point it matters little what level), this is a false argument. Absent consensus on high school notability (and there is no consensus in any language wikipedia that high schools are notable), this is the kind of masquerade that gets trotted out. Eusebeus 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• I've never liked the consensus in favour of high schools (they're generally about as inherently notable as my bedroom), but as long as the consensus is what it is, I haven't seen a convincing reason to treat this article differently from any of the others. Keep. Bearcat 07:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this bad article on this proven-notable school. This one meets WP:Notability hands down. And I am not going to make a tasteless joke about the notability of Bearcat's bedroom. I am not going to make a tasteless joke about the notability of Bearcat's bedroom. I am not ... Noroton 15:29, 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 Speedy delete - No sources, so this comes down to an unsourced attack page on Drogba.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drogbaism

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

Unsourced neologism. Epbr123 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All Google hits refer to Wikipedia/WP mirrors. --Richmeister_talk 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per PC78 below - WP:CSD#G10. --Richmeister_talk 06:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Tx17777 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Agreed major neologism. Wikipedia is not a slang Dictionary. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, in addition to the reasons given above, without proper sourcing this article could be seen as an attack on Didier Drogba. PC78 01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per The Random Editor. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 05:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:59, 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 Merged by sgeureka (talk · contribs) and redirected, a perfectly appropriate move that is probably better than a straight keep. — Scientizzle 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional universe of Carnivàle

Fictional universe of Carnivàle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - fails WP:PLOT. Otto4711 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strongest possible keep for now as article creator. Reason: This article hasn't existed very long, and I'm currently putting my effort into making Carnivàle a featured article and couldn't really pay much attention to expanding the show's subarticles. As I've said in the FAC nom, I deliberately moved all of the plot to this subpage because of the extremely spoilery storyline of the show – have a look at Carnivàle, and you'll see that there is no plot section, just a plot introduction. And since I think it's stupid to create episode articles for this show (as the sourced(!) intro sentence of this article says), I opted to create a "Fictional universe" article where all 24 episodes are shortly summarized and, when finished, are accompanied by comment and analysis by both creators and reviewers. See my current collection of reviewers' opinions here, here and here in my userspace where I'm doing most of my work on the articles in order to not interrupt the subarticles by work-in-progress info drops. If someone thinks that I was not able to produce a good referenced and encyclopedic article in maybe two months, then go ahead and re-nominate this article, but as it is now, no. If you (general you) don't know what others felt was important to this show before I started working on the main article, see here.– sgeureka ^t•c 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - if this is userfied and taken out of article space then that is satisfactory pending continued work on it to bring in real-world significance and sourced analysis. If you're agreeable to that solution and a passing admin wants to userfy the article and close this nomination then that works for me. Otto4711 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• (Longish) Reply. Is there really the need or hurry to take the whole article out of wiki main space? I mean, the current accepted guideline is that episode summaries should be limited to 500 words per hour. The whole article including the current sourced analysis is currently 6500 words, a far cry from the allowed 24*500=12000 words. And there is not much wiki resistance in having hundreds and thousands of episode articles with almost always just plot summaries (Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes, Category:Stargate SG-1 episodes, and my personal favorite Lost (Season 1), heck, even Category:Band of Brothers episodes for a 10 episode show). Because of Carnivàle being the type of show it is, I decided to be a provident wikipedian and only (reluctanty) split off material from the main article when WP:SIZE applied, resulting in 4 new articles where I knew that two might be on shaky notability ground for some weeks. Does this article require some work? I'm not denying it. Is there enough secondary material? Seems so. Is there a dedicated person to work on the article? Yes (how more dedicated can a wikipedian get if he works an article up to WP:FAC status?). BTW, it's perfectly possible that even I will feel in a few weeks that this article should be split or merged into other subarticles (eg. I already thought of merging the Genealogy section to Characters of Carnivàle and the "Route of the carnivale" section to List of Carnivàle episodes), but as wikipedia is a wiki with allegedly no time limit, I can't predict what (new) options will come up for this article that everyone will be comfortable with. So unless there is unanimous agreement to delete this article with all the info I've provided, I do not really favor userfying the article as it would severely hurt both the Carnivàle main article and the (my) wiki process in the meantime. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: A reasonable compromise might be to keep this for now but reassess it for potential deletion in a couple of week's time. That will give Sgeurekat the opportunity to see where it fits after further work is done on the main Carnivàle article. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because well-referenced, well-organized, and with lots of good images. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The program did in fact have a complicated plot arc in a universe of good and evil, and the potential viewer or Wikipedia reader is ill-served by mere plot summaries of each episode. The usual problem is that the writing is all original research, but it appears the article creators have relied on sources such as published interviews with the show's producer and other materials. Edison 03:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is an attempted description of a fictional world. There already exists Characters of Carnivàle which expands on the characters of the show - The rest is just pure plot summary Corpx 06:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply If you want to cover a work of fiction in an encyclopedic manner, of course you have to describe/summarize the plot (and the related fictional world) somewhere. Now that {{spoiler}} tags are as much as officially banned from wikipedia, you can't just mix in the plot (especially of a complex serial like Carnivàle) into the main article any longer. And summarizing/describing the whole overarching plot in a list article about the characters does not seem feasible to me. So what other options are there to summarize the plot and main elements of a show like this? Have an article for each episode - I already explained above why this is not suitable. Split the article/plot into Carnivàle (Season 1) and Carnivàle (Season 2) - not really suitable because per the producers, two seasons make up one "book". Rename the article into Carnivàle (Book 1) - not really suitable because only one of the planned three books was produced. So I chose the name Fictional universe of Carnivàle. (If someone can think of a better title, shoot. I thought about this for a week and couldn't come up with something better than the current title.) The last question is whether the plot itself is notable enough and written about enough to be covered on wikipedia, and the answer seems to point to yes. The plot of the show has been sufficiently covered by independent reviewers both online (see my userspace links above) and in print (eg. TV Zone Issues 168-172, 187, 188, 191, 193; I only have Issue 172 where three Carnivàle episodes received a two page coverage, so I guess the coverage was similar in the other magazine issues). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep very informative - Fosnez 07:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• The article could use better referencing in terms of published, reliable third-party sources, but its perspective is surprisingly real world oriented and provides information beyond a simple plot summary. This is an admittedly weak rationale, but I like the article despite the fact that I'm something of a WP:WAF "zealot". —AldeBaer 13:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article is an exemplar of the content that makes wikipedia vital to the ordinary user such as myself. Where else could this information be found? Without wikipedia I would go through life with far more nagging questions unresolved. Such content deserves to be perpetuated.-Jabrim 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Important note as article creator: The content of this article will be merged to all the other Carnivàle articles in the next few minute/hours, and this article will/should remain as {{R from merge}}. I have shared my thoughts about this procedure at Talk:Fictional universe of Carnivàle#Future of this article. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:11, 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 speedy delete. --Coredesat 08:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Whitecloaks

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

Unless someone can drastically improve this article to make it something bordering useful, this contains no information whatsoever and, from my limited knowledge of the books, is unlikely ever to. Possible merge with Minor Wheel of Time characters if anyone knows of any examples. Tx17777 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No context whatsoever, no notability. Realkyhick 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this has zero context, and if there are minor characters among the Whitecloaks who are notable enough to be mentinoed, they should be included in the minor characters article as mentioned above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• CSD tagged as no-context Corpx 06:14, 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 as A7. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Vernick

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

An article on a poet who is published by the vanity press AuthorHouse. Fails WP:BIO. The creation of a WP:SPA. Victoriagirl 18:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. How on earth did this not get speedied? Totally non-notable, unsourced, spam, you name it. Realkyhick 19:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of 3rd party coverage Corpx 06:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete lack of 3rd party coverage, closest mention is on a press release site. Ealdgyth | Talk 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7. So tagged. Not even true (Even I had a poem published younger than that and I wasn't exactly a child prodigy) — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:04, 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 speedily deleted as a copyvio. --Coredesat 07:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Mangos

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

This article doesn't have any sources listed, is written rather poorly and should have been speedy deleted. None the less should be deleted. Xtreme racer 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I declined to speedy because the article asserted notability, so was inelegible for CSD. Eleven years as a senior news anchor? If this was a U.S. TV anchor (ie, Dan Rather), he wouldn't be here. Lack of refs is not an AfD reason, but rather a reason to post a {{references}} and maybe a cleanup tag. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notability seems to be pretty well established, and a google search turns up a truckload of relevant pages, so I'm sure the necessary sources exist. The writing itself could use some work, but that's no reason for deletion. Calgary 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. It's eligible for CSD as a copyvio of the subject's web site with no assertion of permission. The subject is notable but this isn't the way to do it. Also COI. The page was created by Megistimedia (talk · contribs) - Megisti Media is the name of Mangos' consultancy and production company. Dbromage [Talk] 00:17, 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 thanks to the work of Kizor. Fram 15:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animecon (Finland)

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

I reluctantly bring this Finish anime convention up for AfD, but other then one article which only briefly mentions the convention, I have been unable to track down additional reliable secondary sources that would allow the article to meet to notability criteria at WP:N or WP:ORG. The article has been tagged as having a notability problem since January 2007. --Farix (Talk) 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It would help if we had some information on just how big this convention is. It says "biggest in Finland", but that on its own means nothing. I for one have no idea how popular anime is in Finland. If the convention only attracts 10 visitors a year, then I'd say delete, but if its say 500 or more, than a keep and expand would be more appropriate. Tx17777 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Its because of that claim that keeps this article being an A7 speedy deletion. The problem is, beyond the brief mention in the article I linked to above, there are no other reliable secondary sources to build an encyclopedic article from, much else establish its notability per WP:N and WP:ORG. --Farix (Talk) 18:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• It attracts several thousand visitors. --Kizor 09:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. No good sources have been found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Question Anybody here involved in Anime in Finland, or even Europe at all? If so, they might be able to find more sources. I know I wouldn't have any idea where to look. I'm sure this isn't a Dragoncon or Comicon, but it might be something. Have they had any major guests? FrozenPurpleCube 23:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless the sources attesting the notability are found Corpx 06:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

*Please do not delete the content, yet, but merge with Finncon. Read the article. It is part of the larger Con, and while notable by itself, is part of a 9,000-person con, one of the largest in the world. I'll be bold and copy the relevant material to the other page. Then go ahead and delete to your hearts' non-content. ;-) Bearian 19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

O.K., folks, delete it if you wish. I've merged them, so the content is now redundent. Bearian 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep per improvements by Kizor to fulfill the Heymann standard. Bearian 15:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. As apparently the only one here who speaks Finnish and is thus able to read the great majority of available information and sources, I believe my word should count for (is chased off the public computer at the library where he was searching for magazines on the subject (all checked out), will continue at home. sigh.) --Kizor 15:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Finncon as already merged by User:Bearian. JIP | Talk 08:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Vote changed to keep per User:Kizor's rewrite. JIP | Talk 12:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Well, I rewrote the article, bringing into it the breadth and depth of most convention articles. I finally succeeded in tracking down the relevant issues of Anime magazine and integrated them as printed sources. This changes the issue completely - the discussion was never about whether we should have an article on this topic, but whether its then-current form was acceptable, and it hinged on a lack of improvements. We should now reconsider, rather than base the decision on circumstances that no longer apply.
  Now, as for merging, Animecon and Finncon are very much separate. Apparently Bearian, who can't read Finnish, got the idea that they're one from the one link in the nomination? A reasonable conclusion in the circumstances, but wrong. The two share premises but few subjects and no events, not even opening ceremonies, and each gets a large segement of non-overlapping visitors. They're organized by separate groups, comparable in size and referred to as two separate conventions, including by the press and the leading Finnish news agency. (I checked. I could get a cite but that would get even more excessive than this paragraph.) --Kizor 16:09, 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to close a swimming pool

How to close a swimming pool (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete was originally tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio of the linked page, but the author asserts permission, any way - WP is not a how-to guide which is basically what this article is. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Tx17777 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as a how-to guide, and an unsourced (self-described) essay/article. ◄Zahakiel► 18:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What the hell kind of article is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.32.227 (talk) 18:08, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

One about swimming pools. And how to close them. Lugnuts 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete According to WP:NOT#GUIDE "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. " Need I say anymore? Calgary 18:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced how-to. Jakew 18:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced how-to and copyvio, and do not move to wikibooks; editor who created the page claims to own the rights, but as far as I can tell that has not been confirmed, and the web site where the content is hosted contains an assertion of copyright. -- Vary | Talk 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, single-sourced how-to, obvious copy-and-paste from somewhere. Realkyhick 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Definite violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. Article is not sourced and not written in an encyclopedic tone; actually, it's not an encyclopedic topic. Useight 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• uber mega delete This article violates oh so many policies, its hard to know where to start. WP:NOT#GUIDE for starters. The editor even claims the article was written by himself which would probably turn into WP:OWN. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic and reads more like a guide than an article (and it is). AR Argon 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete on all counts. Wasted Time R 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wiki is not a guide and also smells like a copy/paste version.--JForget 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Dbromage [Talk] 00:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:OR, poorly written/essay, includes some sort of copyright notice, and author signed on the page itself. This is not good. OSborn^arf 03:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (Edit: Possible legal problems because of that copyright notice. OSborn^arf 03:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
• Delete - topic is already covered in an encyclopedic manner in Swimming pool#Winterization. I don't have to repeat that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per all of the above. ♠TomasBat 16:43, 1 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Flash (book)

The Flash (book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

belatedly contested prod, nn anthology Carlossuarez46 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

KEEP- Book has many highly notable contributors (Rick Moody, Mitch Cullin, Steve Almond, etal), has received some press and notice in largish publications, benefits one of the world's largest charities. Seems notable to me. It does need the sources and references cleaned up and fixed though 63.76.154.130 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources, no references, non-notable book that does not need its own entry. Wouldn't even merit a sentence in any of the notable authors' entries much less that of the charity. THF 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• actually many sources exist. I'm in the process of tracking them down and adding them to the article, but it will take several days. Bookmankilz 19:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable third-party sources can be found. The current bunch are woefully inadequate: mostly blogs, and a BBC link that doesn't appear to mention the subject, let alone give non-trivial coverage. Jakew 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources, can't be verified. Realkyhick 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An article that says almost nothing except that "it's an anthology" and "here are the authors" Mandsford 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Rick Moody, Mitch Cullin, or the other names dropped above didn't author or edit this book, they sent the editor manuscripts, presumably when asked to do so. One or two actually famous contributors to a work -- especially when it's unclear HOW they contributed -- means bupkis for overall notability. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Calton's comment above is asinine. He seems to be arguing that the authors of a book are not the authors of that book. If you choose to argue that their contributions don't make the book notable, then that would be fine, but this line of reasoning really isn't. A book may have multiple authors (authors being the creators of a written work). If the contents of a book are written by 10 people, then that book has ten authors (although likely only one editor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 13:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Book is clearly notable 138.210.192.42 16:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it curious that someone deletes the votes to keep. 138.210.199.70 21:19, 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 Speedy delete as a repost after an AfD closed only a few days ago. Recreating the article with a slightly different title is not the right solution, and declining a speedy and restarting an AfD is even less correct. Take it to WP:DRV if you have any procedural objections.Fram 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My GRAIN

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

Was deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyGRAIN. Was reposted and deleted as repost. Speedy declined today as meeting assertion of notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep They need to be kept. Last time they were deleted for a bad reason. No harm can come from keeping them. The only thing that could be changed is that the name of the band is myGRAIN, not My GRAIN.Morspecs911 16:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Being harmless is not a reason to keep an article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:MUSIC, 1 album doesn't cut it, and nothing has changed in the last few days since this was deleted. Should have been speedied under G4. But since it keeps coming back, blocking recreation may be in order here. Carlossuarez46 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep So they shouldn't be able to have a wikipedia page because they haven't had a secound album yet? Morspecs911 17:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not about "having a wikipedia page". This is no Facebook. This is an encyclopedia, with very precise criteria about admitting an article (not a "page") on a subject. --Goochelaar 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So they can't have an article in a free encyclopedia because they only have one album, and people don't think they are notable? 71.114.32.227 18:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed over and over. If the article doesn't meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC, then no, they can't "have" an article. Oli Filth 18:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "free encyclopedia" in the sense that "it's free for anyone to have a page". They fail our guidelines for the inclusion of musical groups and artists. They only have one album, which is insufficient for criterion 5. --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep & Rename Sufficiently notable for a band. --Djsasso 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• How? There is nothing that I can see on the article page that meets the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Oli Filth 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete seems like easy case - non-notable. If and when they become notable, a new page can be created. 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBul (talk • contribs)
• Speedy delete and salt per CSD G4 - the article was previously AfD'd as MyGRAIN, and subsequently speedied twice. Author has made no attempt to address WP:MUSIC, even after repeated prompting on Talk:MyGRAIN. Quite probable use of socks to remove speedy tags as well. Oli Filth 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any claim to notability, not even in their website, apart from they giving some gig and some song being aired by some non-notable radio. --Goochelaar 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unnotable, fails WP:MUSIC. Salt seems advised. --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article cannot justify its noteability in my opinion, further to the sparse website, therefore delete. If the band suddenly become the next beatles the page can always be re-creates. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 18:11, 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 No consensus defaulting to keep. It would be a good idea to put the references cited in this AfD into the article. Tyrenius 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nadja (band)

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

Speedy declined. Despite multiple albums that sold in the hundreds (not a typo), it still fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, WP:BAND, and WP:V. Jauerback 16:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:Music. Has been on international tours and has released many albums. --Djsasso 17:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as written, with no independent references, it's a delete. I found one review on Pitchfork. The other Web mentions seem insignificant. If someone comes up with better references I'd reconsider. Without proof of international touring they have no chance. MarkBul 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC - albums selling in the hundreds is not notable. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Oooooh, sales in the hundreds! Contact Billboard Magazine immediately, it's number 1 with a bullet! OK, more like number 451,908 with a lead weight. Totally non-notable. Realkyhick 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't track any decent refs indicating that they're doing enough to generate notability right now. A couple more albums selling better might help. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Above -Flubeca^Talk 21:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:Music. Toured internationally, coverage in Wire, Terrorizer, Decibel, among others. Last Alien8 release charted in the Top 10 of the Metal Charts on Canadian college radio charts: http://www.chartattack.com/charts/specialty/metal/oldtopten/2007/0413.txt 74.99.227.236 02:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC) — 74.99.227.236 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Keep, has anyone actually bothered looking for sources? The IP is absolutely right. And in answer to your mockery of the 'hundreds' of albums sold; this is ambient doom metal, of course the albums aren't multi-platinum. It has been covered three times in Decibel magazine and here in Terrorizer, two of the biggest magazines in the heavy metal world. That satisfies the primary notability criterion alone, without question, but, on top of that, we have Pitchfork Media reviewing them, twice, and significant mentions in other less famous ezines. J Milburn 12:03, 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 Redirect and merge into new article Prince Albert tobacco, which is referenced. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Albert in a Can

Prince Albert in a Can (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced prank phone call. Even if it is a classic, it is still not verifiable. This would be acceptable as a section in an article on Prince Albert tobacco, but there is no such article. There is no need for an article to stand alone about the joke. Accordingly, delete as unverifiable and without sufficient notability for its on article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Prank call. It is already mentioned there, and as something of a "classic" it's certainly a viable search term. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect seems viable, though an article on John Middleton Inc. would also be desirable. FrozenPurpleCube 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - Same as above. A whole new article isn't needed for a prank when there's already a master list elsewhere. TheInfinityZero 17:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• NOTE: The article already redirects to Prince Albert tobacco, which has a section about the prank call. ◄Zahakiel► 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• The move along with more information is an acceptable solution - though it might have been nice of the editor who moved the page to drop a note here on the AfD ;) No harm done. Anyway, for what it is worth, keep the new version. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Arkyan, yours was the second edit conflict while I was trying to drop said note. ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Mine was probably the first. I apparently found the page just after you'd completed the move :) Oh, yeah.. and Keep the new version. ◄Zahakiel► 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I have boldly moved the article to Prince Albert tobacco, which was half its content in any case, and begun sourcing this top brand. --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep New version is sourced/notable/generally encyclopedic. Calgary 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Prince Albert tobacco — no wait, that's been done. I think we have closure here folks. By the way, is your refrigerator running? Well you'd better catch it? (Same genre and era as the Prince Albert joke.) Realkyhick 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Closing comment. Are you German? Are you Swedish? Are you Danish? Are you Finnish? This AfD is. Since the merge is already done, and the new target article is notable, I'm closing the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 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 - there doesn't really appear to be consensus here, so the article is kept But Please take action to cleanup and improve the list. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of colleges and universities named after people

List of colleges and universities named after people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list offers no unique information nor is it useful as a navigational aid. The information it contains is already in the articles about each of the universities and it offers no unique grouping or development-assisting feature that would make it useful per WP:LIST. Being named after someone is not a defining characteristic and the massiveness of the list reflects this. Far too much effort has been put into this list-for-the-sake-of-lists already, let's not put anymore into it. Wickethewok 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Pointless list. Being named after a person is not a useful characteristic and is of no use to anyone. Tx17777 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Some might find it interesting. M.V.E.i. 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The objective of this list would be much better accomplished by a category. —C.Fred (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would have agreed but similar categories have been axed in the past. Carlossuarez46 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - The article appears to be listcruft. Breaking the link rules, this article is filled with internal links and hardly anything else. TheInfinityZero 16:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The potential exists for making this into a worthwhile article by adding information about the reason why the institution selected its namesake, as well as the naming history of institutions that changed their names to entice big donors or curry favor with politicians or royalty. Also, the list could be subdivided by the nature of the relationship with the namesake. I would enjoy expanding the article, but I confess to limited wikitable-skills and fear of creating a tremendous mess if I attempt ambitious changes to the table. I did add to the introductory paragraph.--orlady 17:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

At User:Orlady/Stuff I'm working on/Universities named for people I have to started to show how the article could be expanded and reorganized. BTW, one thing I have discovered is that many of the linked college/university articles do not have information about the institutions' namesakes. I have had to dig for that.--orlady 04:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) I have extensively revised the article. I added locations for most institutions, added information about the naming of many institutions, and subdivided the article by the person's relationship to the institution. It's still a work in progress, but I moved the material into article space because the vast majority of the reorganization is done. Additional work is needed on researching schools in the "not yet classified" category, describing the naming of institutions, adding sources, and fixing links for the numerous Indian universities that are still listed with external URLs.--orlady 17:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Detailed information on the reasoning behind the naming of any institution, whether named after a peson or not, belongs in the article for said institution and not in a generic article of this nature. There are many reasons for the naming of such places and trying to expand this article to include them and then subdividing even further would end end up with a huge, unwieldy mess. The article is big enough already without any further expansion - there are no doubt literally thousands of colleges and universities in the world named after people, and it's far too vague a subject to be documented in such a way. Tx17777 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —bwowen talk•contribs 19:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Another pointless, nearly impossible-to-maintain list. Realkyhick 20:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I wouldn't call it exactly pointless listcruft, but it doesn't do anything that a category couldn't. Dbromage [Talk] 00:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The "nearly impossible to maintain" argument doesn't fly -- it's not as if colleges and universities are being set up every other week. This could be better organized, but behind each of these educational institutions was a founder with a vision. Mandsford 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. That may be so, but not all educational institutions named after people are named after their founder. The only such university in Australia is Bond University. In most countries you generally have to be dead to have a new university or college named after you. I daresay Jesus College, Oxford wasn't named after its founder! Dbromage [Talk] 01:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe indirectly it was.... Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Purdue, the University of Maryland... many of all the great universities in America are named after people65.207.127.12 23:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this article isn't what it could be, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Eponymy is to my mind inherently noteworthy in some way and a list is certainly better than a category (as similar categories have been deleted in the past Category:Eponymous cities for example). Carlossuarez46 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep While it needs some trimming, I think this is a valid navigational tool as having a university named after you is a pretty big deal? Corpx 06:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A good navigational tool., which is sufficient justification for a list with such well-defined criterion. Good start. I'd like to see a column about location, which would further add to the usefulness. DGG (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. That two universities are named after different people does not make them similar in any fashion, or in such a manner that it becomes natural to gather them together in the same article. For a "list of ..." article to serve a meaningful function there needs to be a common, and reasonably tight, theme which makes it natural to discuss the entries together. This would in general mean that being on the list has some impact on the university. Being in a particular location has an impact on a university, so List of universities in Denmark is fine. Being part of a major association or league has an impact on the university, so lists of Ivy League members are certainly justified (although that list is reasonably placed in the Ivy League article.) However, that the universities happen to be named after completely different people who's only relation is sharing the species of Homo Sapiens is a very loose association. Universities are not largely affected by being named after someone, and they are not in any way bound together by such a fact. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep At least it's reasonably well defined. Seems useful and defined, and a good navigational aid. The concept fits one of the ideas of a featured list. Ealdgyth | Talk 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but improve so it's not just a list. But if it's not improved there will be an inevitable second AFD. Thin Arthur 05:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. -- Roleplayer 00:08, 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 keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bogdan Oprea

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

Non-notable minor league football player Tx17777 15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 15:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - he played for UCD in the eircom Premier League, the top level of football in the Republic of Ireland. - PeeJay 15:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Has played in the top division in the Republic of Ireland, and all current UCD players have articles. Number 57 15:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep has played in the top level in the Republic of Ireland. Mattythewhite 15:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If he had played for the first squad for any legnth of time, I would agree, but 5 games before being released is not worthy of notability in my book Tx17777 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

But guidelines state that if a player has played even one match at the top level of football in a country, then he is notable enough to have his own article. By that token, he is five times more notable than is required. - PeeJay 16:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, for some who were fans of the teams he played in whem he played there that might be interesting. M.V.E.i. 16:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm going to exercise good faith that there are independent sources to verify he played for UCD. (The source currently in the article is related to the club; I think it's reliable, just not as independent as I'd like it to be.) Because UCD is in the top-level Irish league, he is notable per WP:BIO, whether he's a full professional or not. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. All it takes is one match on a top-league team. Realkyhick 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a no brainer this one. Has played at the top Irish level. Englishrose 18:21, 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. Consensus=Wikipedia is not a directory as informed by this deletion which was upheld at WP:DRV. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of library and information science programs

List of library and information science programs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is directory of universities which offer what is a fairly common college degree. Even if the massive number of external links are removed, this is still a fairly loose association of collected schools, as this degree is offered by many universities and is fairly comparable to something like "List of Universities With Art History programs" or "List of mechanical engineering programs". Wickethewok 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, maybe it needs some work on it but it might evolve in to a nice thing. M.V.E.i. 16:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or rewrite - This article breaks Wikipedia's list policies by being filled with internal links. In addition, the external links are not in their own subcategory, alike the rest of Wikipedia. This article must be rewritten if it hopes to not be removed. TheInfinityZero 16:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Jakew 19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep! While the list of American and Canadian masters programs is taken from the ALA, the lists of undergraduate programs (and perhaps programs in other countries) is unique and useful information. Undergraduate programs of this type are somewhat unusual and not accredited by any organization and, as such, no list of such programs seems to exist on the internet. As many of the programs are small and not very well publicized, Wikipedia is ideal for the creation of a list of them. Individuals either participating or interested in participating in a such a program will naturally find the entry and would likely contribute the programs they know of. In fact, this has already happened. The deletion of this article would not merely destroyed unique and useful information but would prevent the creation of such information. (Also stated in my defense of List of universities that offer the PPE degree.) Patrick Mhnin0 00:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps a better place for this list would be on LISwiki? --Zeborah 01:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is a directory of schools that offer a particular degree. We're not a directory Corpx 06:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep we have many such subject lists, and we should have more, at least for the graduate programs relatively few universities have. (if the consensus should be to delete this one, i will however accept it and nominate the others) The ones not represented by articles should be and can be. This subject area is at a early state of development at WP, and needs to have the articles augmented, not removed. DGG (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per jakew Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:42, 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 as a rarely used term and an article without references (yes, not having references is actually a very good excuse for deletion, and it is up to those wanting to keep it to provide the references). Fram 15:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delayed Fall

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

Unreferenced stub. The subject is already covered in Cartoon physics. Shalom ^Hello 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Not having references is not an excuse. It's easy to nominate for deletion, but a good admonistrator/editor would go for himself and look for the links and references, or he should just shut-up. If EVERYTHING this article has is covered in the cartoon physics, then merge. M.V.E.i. 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is already covered at least as well at Cartoon physics, and Google offers no evidence that this is a commonly used term for the phenomenon, so a redirect is not appropriate. Iain99 17:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per the above. --Djsasso 17:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think a redirect is the way to go - the term "delayed fall" just doesn't seem to be used for this aspect of cartoon physics - it's more likely to refer to something else, such as a drop in blood pressure occuring some time after a drug is given. Iain99 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Smoosh! delete this per Iain99, as he/she raises a valid point. !paradigm! 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)!paradigm!
• Delete. Even when you restrict the gsearch to articles that also have "cartoon", most of the 23 hits are about the delay of a fall TV schedule. Not a notable term. --Fabrictramp 17:09, 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 Delete. The cut and paste copies are being deleted in favor of keeping the more comprehensive existing list from which they were cut and pasted (redundant material in violation of GFDL being the deletion target rather than the original) Carlossuarez46 21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Atomic Betty Season 1 episodes

List of Atomic Betty Season 1 episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is an exact duplicate of the Season 1 section of List of Atomic Betty episodes and therefore does not need to exist as a separate entity. MSJapan 15:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following page for the same reason as above, except that it is a copy of the Season 2 section of the main episode list article:

• List of Atomic Betty Season 2 episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete or merge. There's no point in having an exact copy of an article, but split into two pages, all with the same content. If any content from the two sub-pages can be moved to the main page before deleting, it should be done. --Patar knight 15:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - I agree. The extra page's information could all be put on a single page. I think the articles should be deleted. TheInfinityZero 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. GreenJoe 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, although give them a quick once-over first to make sure we're not actually deleting any information that isn't in the main article. If any such information is found, then copy-paste it back into Atomic Betty before deleting. I doubt there is any, but a quick check just to be safe can't hurt. Bearcat 07:51, 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. AfD arguments need to be based on policy. Those for delete are, pointing to lack of verifiable sources to justify the article. Those for keep are asserting there is notability but not proving it. Tyrenius 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy

Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article completely lacks context and fails to show how the phrases have become culturally significant (internet entertainment tabloids and ringtone charts don't help here.) This sort of article can be done properly (see Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons), but Family Guy has not had the same level of widespread cultural impact as The Simpsons has. Without any evidence of widespread cultural significance of Family Guy phrases, this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Richmeister_talk 15:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Family Guy. "Culturally significant" is a vague enough term at best, although among certain groups Family Guy is a very significant show. Not enough for an individual article, but worthy of a mention within the main article. Tx17777 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Merge would be a good idea if you were suggesting to merge into a small article. If you want to argue the term "culturally significant," there are at least a couple other articles you might want to suggest renaming. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is small. The two items worth keeping would fit nicely into a Catchphrases section in Family Guy article. The rest ("whose leg ...") are better suited to FG character pages. / edg ☺ ★ 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Update. I think everything worth keeping is merged here and here. / edg ☺ ★ 02:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This page just wanders, and I doubt that there is really anything superiorly "culturally significant" for this to have its own article. Dannycali 22:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All cited and verifiable, just as much as Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Anyway, how many catch phrases from Family Guy made it into the Oxford English Dictionary? In round numbers...... :) Dbromage [Talk] 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Tx17777. Dbromage [Talk] 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Tx17777. While the show has commonly identifiable catchphrases (as with many modern comedies), "culturally significant" is overstating it. Re-create if Giggity-giggity-goo starts being used by people not referring to Family Guy. / edg ☺ ★ 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dannycali and Corpx. Merge completed. [11] [12] If someone feels this article must be preserved, the Family Guy wikia might be a good place for it. Wikipedia is not. / edg ☺ ★ 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This is also transwiki'ed (partially — no deletion or logging on the Wikipedia side). / edg ☺ ★ 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • What a great job was done of that. Ugh. ShutterBugTrekker 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I'm not assuming good faith, but the parent comment reads like a grievance. If so, can objections be specified? If not, I apologize for accusing ShutterBugTrekker. / edg ☺ ★ 07:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as being patently trivial. The Simpsons this ain't. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (See, both sides can play that annoying game). Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Calling something trivial is not "I don't like it." I in fact much prefer Family Guy to the Simpsons, but I have no trouble admitting that none of the content from this article even comes close to the notability of the similar Simpsons article. Family Guy, even if I prefer its comedy, is not the cultural institution that is the Simpsons. Notability is not inherited, and simply because the show is notable does not entail that every aspect of it merits an article. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of independent sources saying why these are notable Corpx 06:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete The one for the Simpsons is a special case, & considerably more notable than almost any other such list.DGG (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While Family Guy doesn't have the longevity of The Simpsons, its catchphrases and neologisms are already making an indelible impact on American pop culture. The word "giggity," to take edg's example, is used by male teenagers and 20-somethings in response to the sudden appearance of a woman they consider attractive and in their own age group (while an attractive older woman might get American Pie''s "MILF"). There already are verifiable sources and the academic journals should catch up soon. Donnabella 21:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

1. WP:CRYSTAL
2. If someone walks into a bar and people shout "Norm!", that doesn't mean the show Cheers merits a separate "Culturally significant words and phrases..." article. If verifiable sources and academic journals "catch up" with giggity, they should be footnoted in the Neologisms section in Family Guy.
3. I don't think it's helpful to treat this article as a referendum on the validity and importance of Family Guy as compared to The Simpsons. The Simpsons "words and phrases" article clearly stands on its own; this article does not, and one can reasonably assume that it cannot be brought to encyclopedic quality at this time. / edg ☺ ★ 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I can see where this article can go. Family Guy neologism are very culturally popular, and significant, and their use has been imitated by many Americans, and is the topic of many different websites found throughout the web. Although, the content of this article may not warrant an article of its own, and may be properly merged into the main article. I believe that the contents of this article deserves to mentioned and noted. RiseRobotRise 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As RiseRobotRise points out, simple Web searches show the popular usage of these words and phrases adapted to the double purpose of conveying the meaning intended for them in the show as well as simultaneously paying homage to the show. Anton Mravcek 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Many of the words introduced or popularized by Family Guy have already entered (past tense) into pop culture and slang in a powerful way, and are used to carry meaning besides expression of fandom. I don't care if the eggheads catch up, so don't bug me with that wp:crystal crap. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 20:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of crap, are you saying this article is being held to too high a standard by "eggheads", and we should keep it on the basis of original research? And is that an exception we should apply to all articles, or just this one? (Or just any articles liked by Family Guy fans?) / edg ☺ ★ 23:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletionists have a million tricks up their sleeves. One of them has been to turn the phrase "original research" into something dirty and tawdry.

Anyone can type up famous words and phrases from Family Guy in a search engine box and get hundreds if not thousands of results. That's not original research. To hook someone up to an MRI and measure their physiological responses as they use these words, now that would be original research. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Others have already explained the tremendous influence of this show on American slang. Just because the article hasn't been brought up to "encyclopedic quality" (by whose standards, I don't know) under the duress of threatened deletion, doesn't mean that it can't be under any other circumstance. Michiganotaku 20:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Both notable and easily verifiable. Carla Bondicteuresse 21:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator's complaint that the article lacks context is something that can be fixed. But the nominator is wrong about the cultural impact of the show. For a show that hasn't been on as long as The Simpsons, Family Guy has had great cultural impact. Its neologisms which have entered the popular vernacular are already widely used all over the Internet and can be verified with a search engine. We don't demand scholarly journal articles to verify, for example, the sales figures of the latest version of Microsoft Word. ShutterBugTrekker 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

CommentNo, because there are other reliable sources for that information. We don't accept the results for a Google search for "I just bought a copy of Microsoft Word". --Richmeister_talk 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Among the many uses of "giggity" by 20-somethings, here's a very small sampling: a 23-year-old female from Florida has "Giggity giggity. Giggity goo." as her username on myspace (her myspace URL is "quiet_gray"). Page 7 of Technique (the student newspaper of Georgia Tech) for November 17, 2006, used "giggity giggity goo" to refer to Lindsay Lohan. The point is: "giggity" and some of the others are easily verified as notable. It might fall short of a silver platter, but not even a golden platter will satisfy Family Guy-haters. CompositeFan 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Extremely notable and easily verified. Plinth molecular gathered 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I seem to see a lot of these Keep votes seem to be from Family Guy fans that want to hold on to anything related about the show. The arguments for the notability of a few "culturally significant terms" is pretty shoddy. This article is not necessary, and the Quagmire article already has a lot of it already. And as a 20-something male with a healthy social life, I have never heard these terms used in real life. Dannycali 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a disgusting show. Having said that, lots of people our age use words from it. I don't know who Dannycali hangs out with. Augurr 20:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep This article should be kept but merged into Family Guy. Yoda317 22:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This information is already merged into Family Guy. As for this article, do we Keep or Delete?/ edg ☺ ★ 23:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The merge into the main article is much better, although I don't think saying that a nn website is a good example of showing notability (in "sideboob"), that's almost spammy. I think a redirect seems alright for now. The sources on the page only show that the words were used on the show, not how they are "culturally significant". Dannycali 03:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep article needs improvment but lets delete it before they got any chance to improve it! does taht make sense? one scohlarly source is due for december or january (depending on reveiw process), an informal source is due out later this monht but their already are plenty of informal sources on the web. even if "sideboob" was not coined by FG, FG inspired the website. its easy to turn up myspace users chusing FG words an prhases for there usernames and we even have one wikipedia user doing that Numerao 13:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you link or otherwise detail the "scholarly source" to which you refer? Cos right now we have giggity-squat plus vague promises. / edg ☺ ★ 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Your use of "giggity" is very interesting, and helps prove the point that this word has so permeated the culture it's already experiencing semantic drift.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Kr (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2007
      • It does? Are you certain about this? Have you not considered the possibility that I may be simply referencing a term which might have come up earlier in this conversation? Are you going to include in your article a case study of the guy on Wikipedia who uses giggity in everyday vernacular based on my above comment? / edg ☺ ★ 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I wrote an article for Bob's Poetry Magazine on this topic, for the September issue, but it hasn't come out. I sent Bob the proof back just like he asked. I asked Bob and he said that it's someone else's article in the issue that's holding up release. So if you want to put pressure on him about this, the URL is bobspoetry.com. Michael Kr 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC) p. s. I don't know what sources Numerao is talking about, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone's beaten me to the punch on this topic (like my idea for a book of scholarly essays about The L Word).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Kr (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2007
  • This article was nominated for deletion 7 days ago. No improvements have occurred in this time, despite several assurances that this article will get much better as long as it is Kept. This article is 8 months old, so it has had time to mature. There have been hardly any edits in the past two months. It got this far, and stopped. I don't see the initiative to improve it, only to Keep it. / edg ☺ ★ 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe they refuse to continue playing deletionists' games. You improve one thing, thinking, maybe that'll satisfy them. But no, the deletionists have a Halliburtonian relentlessness about them. Fix one thing and they find another to complain about them. Maybe the only way to satisfy a deletionist is do bend to their will unquestioningly the first time around. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Why on earth would anyone resist making improvements to an article just because the suggested improvements came from an AFD discussion? To me that seems almost like it would border on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point... --Miskwito 22:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Exactly. The deletionist's tactic is to overwhelm by always being ready with another criticism at the point that the enemy thinks this might actually do the trick, but no, they're ready with something else. Eventually this wears down the enemy to the point they just give up. Cromulent Kwyjibo 02:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
          • No, you're just using a strawman argument here. For this article, the only requests for improvement I see are things along the line of "find references", which is definitely something any article should have. If you're trying to argue that people requesting reliable references/citations for an article is a "deletionist tactic", then you might want to read up on Wikipedia policy some more. But what it looks more like you're doing is making up arguments on the part of the people you disagree with, then mocking those made-up arguments, instead of actually working to fix the article into something salvageable. --Miskwito 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This article was created the very day List of neologisms on Family Guy was deleted. While I can't read the deleted article, the initial version of this article resembles the work of several editors. Interestingly, a start-to-current diff shows no real improvement since the edit creating this article in March. / edg ☺ ★ 15:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Had I known that this article was deleted previously, I think it should be speedied. It's the same article under a different name. I don't think things have changed much in the last few months to warrant this article to exsist. I would like to request a speedy delete based on reposted info. Dannycali 04:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You could ask, but it's a bit late for a speedy and my guess is they will leave it to the AfD. It would have been nice of voters here who participated in the previous discussion to have mentioned this, but none did. It would have been nice. / edg ☺ ★ 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you poor thing, you deserve our sympathy! Gimme a break. This is another tactic.

It's not the same article. The one that was deleted focused only on word neologisms created by the show's writers. This one takes a broader, much more easily verifiable view. ShutterBugTrekker 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —edg ☺ ★ 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —edg ☺ ★ 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. —edg ☺ ★ 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge relevant points to Family Guy main article and Quagmire article. There's just not enough here to justify a separate article. Squidfryerchef 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The merge is performed here. We're down to Keep, Delete and Vilify the "deletionists". Choose wisely. / edg ☺ ★ 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete then. Squidfryerchef 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, notable show, article asserts notability, or continue the efforts to merge and redirect without deleting. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The merge is performed here. All that remains is should we Keep or Delete this article. / edg ☺ ★ 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Has already been merged, and I can't see any indication of much useful stuff here that's worth keeping. Certainly I don't see the need for a separate article. There are references cited in the article, but only one in-line citation, so it's essentially unsourced, because it's not clear which information has sources and which doesn't. I also don't see any of the people arguing "keep" actually providing any evidence any actual evidence of the "cultural significance" of any of these words or phrases--which after all is what the article is presumably about. What I do see is unsupported claims that lots of people use such words, but unsupported claims can't be used to demonstrate notability or cultural significance. --Miskwito 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but shorten title to "Words and phrases from Family Guy." It is clear enough that the words are culturally significant. Jindřichův Smith 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand, how is that clear? It's not so just because you say it's so. You need to provide evidence (the definition of "culturally significant" is difficult, but just showing the notability of these words/phrases should be sufficient for now). Aside from "giggity", I really can't think of any words or phrases from Family Guy that could be considered notable. The article barely mentions more than that. What are they? If they're so notable and significant, it shouldn't be hard to find plenty of examples. --Miskwito 23:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Question Does anyone have any strong evidence from a reliable source of the cultural significance of a word or phrase from Family Guy other than Giggity Giggity Goo (the significance of which is covered in Glenn Quagmire#Catchphrases)? --Richmeister_talk 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Partial Answer Sideboob springs to mind. Look at sideboob.org. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The word sideboob exitsed before it was on Family Guy, and a website with an Alexa rank in the high 300,000s isn't all that culturally significant. --Richmeister_talk 21:02, 1 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. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J. Otis Ledbetter

J. Otis Ledbetter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced since forever and tagged as such in March, not fixed since.

This individual is stated to have been featured on a number of Christian broadcasts, but there is no reference for that, and in any case "featured" is a weasel word meaning he appeared; he does not appear to be a regular contributor. There are a numb er of mentions on the Internet about him (as there are for any conservative Christian speaker, they have a sort of cottage industry in interviewing each other) but there's nothing that looks like an independent biography, and this article looks like a puff piece, which is unsurprising given its provenance. It was created by User:Jason Gastrich as part of his campaign to boost Louisiana Baptist University, and there is not much interest from anybody else - all substantive edits are by Gastrich or those patrolling his edits, everything else is maintenance. Survived AfD 1 as "no consensus" after sockpuppetry and canvassing by Gastrich, I suspect that a reappraisal of this article is now due. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Six months are plenty of time to find an independent reliable source. Accordingly, none of the assertions in the article are verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Agreement and affirmation with the two gentlemen above. There has been no establishment of notability according to my understanding of Wikipedia standards, that is, it has not been established by verifiable sources independent of the subject. Guy makes an excellent point when he writes, "there are a number of mentions on the Internet...they have a sort of cottage industry in interviewing each other." The subject has a fairly insignificant publication record even within a publishing genre that is somewhat notorious for its lack of standards, and is all but completely unknown outside of the conservative Christian community. - Nascentatheist 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the Gastrich thing was before my time, but Ledbetter is a published author and one of the higher ups in James Dobson's organization. I hear him on BBN occasionally. Even if the article was created in bad faith, the guy is well-known. --B 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. Hello, B, please see my comments on the talk page. - Nascentatheist 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  I have reviewed your comments. I share your concern about there not being much in the way of online sources. That is the only reason that I would consider deleting the article. (Of course, as reasons go, it's far from a bad one.) I'm unconvinced by the rest ... he's a "minor player" inasmuch as he is not Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc, but so are most of the people we have articles on. If the article had not been created by a now-banned user or if it were not about a Christian, would this even be an issue? --B 02:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  Hi, B. Thanks for your reply. Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I'd say that Ledbetter's Christianity is irrelevant. There are quite a few "Christian" entries that I, as an atheist, would never want to see deleted. It's a fair point to suggest that Jason's origination of the article has caused it to receive some of the attention that it has received. However, I'd qualify that by simply saying that the source of the article only made it's appearance occur more quickly as a subject of an AfD. Had Jason been completely independent of the article and I had run across it, I'd nominate it for the reasons I've stated; and I suspect that lots of other editors might be inclined to do the same thing. As it is, I didn't nominate it, but I support its deletion. Ledbetter's notability has not been established or supported, and he meets none of the criteria that I cite on the talk page. If there are lots of articles about "minor players" of this sort at Wikipedia, perhaps that's part of the problem that needs to be addressed, and that needs to start somewhere. - Nascentatheist 08:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I know that JzG and Nascentatheist, among others, are systematically going around deleting anything started by Jason Gastrich, but what possible harm can this article do? Do you not think some people will get some utility from being able to read that article? Uncle Davey (Talk) 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Response on the talk page. - Nascentatheist 00:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No claims of notability. No sourcing to speak of. So far as I can tell, this is indeed another case of Gastrich inflating the importance (in the larger scale) of a minister. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I get the feeling that this guy is almost notable, almost worth keeping, almost important ... but every time I tried to find something to fill in the "almost" and give this article meat, the substance kept evaporating. Not every author is worthy of an article, and that's really all this guy has going for him. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:55, 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seke (manga)

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

Unreferenced original research that parades as a dicdef. See also related AFDs on Uke and Seme --Farix (Talk) 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Basically an unsourced dictdef, which conflicts with WP:NOT#DICT. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 15:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 20:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - violation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary first, then delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:02, 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 and redirect to List of Starfleet ship classes. Mackensen (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starfleet starship registry

Starfleet starship registry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

How it pains me to do this, after spending so much time months ago revising and editing this article -- with a better grip on policy, it's clear this is nothing but plot summary about a non-notable aspet of Star Trek. It's a well-organized list of trivia. --EEMeltonIV 14:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also listing this for deletion (after FrozenPurpleCube's note)

• Starship name prefixes (Star Trek) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Question and what about Starship name prefixes (Star Trek)? I'd say keep myself. Nothing unreasonable about this information. FrozenPurpleCube 17:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with List of Star Trek ships, prune the OR if you think it's OR. Wl219 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Wl219. Dbromage [Talk] 23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Memory Alpha. Hektor 06:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Transwiki because it is completely in universe information with no real world notability. Memory Alpha has an incompatible license, but other star trek ones should take it Corpx 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Starship name prefixes (Star Trek) - Fosnez 07:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & keep the two articles per precedent set here, this is a hell of a lot more encyclopaedic than that ever was — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Wl219. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Keep it is sourced and referenced and an established part of Trek canon.KTo288 19:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested. -- Roleplayer 03:22, 6 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. — TKD::Talk 08:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Getting Warm

Just Getting Warm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I can not find one verifiable source for this article. Just Blaze has never mentioned it in his blog, and a search for his quote on the page returns no results. Surely a project of this magnitude would have attracted significant attention in Hip Hop media. Xlrbnc 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tx17777 15:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - For the same reason as above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInfinityZero (talk • contribs) 17:00, 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. — TKD::Talk 08:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Houlton Road Trio

Houlton Road Trio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) Hirolovesswords 14:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No sign of notability. MarkBul 14:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• If I read this right, they sold (sorry, gave away) 47 copies of the album. Their first performance was August 2. Speedy delete with a big stick - there's no possible way they meet WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 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. Poorly sourced and violates much of the policies on what Wikipedia is not. ELIMINATORJR 22:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stereotypes of whites

Stereotypes of whites (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is presently tagged as OR, lacking references, essay, and USA-specific. These are all true, and it does not seem that the situation is improving: in its present shape, the only way to improve the article is to rewrite it from scratch. Furthermore, the encyclopaedic value of the article, even if rewritten to conform to WP guidelines, is rather dubious. Therefore, I propose to delete this article per WP:NOR and WP:V. -- int19h 13:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom this warped personal essay and random compilation of movie trivia. "Chucky and Bride of Chucky are blonde, blue-eyed, possessed, and evil"? WTF? wikipediatrix 13:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Here's the comment of the original author of the article from its talk page: "Hello. This page is directly copied/pasted from Ethnic stereotypes in American media". I would like to point out that the "Ethnic stereotypes in American media" article underwent a separate AfD process recently, and was deleted. I believe that the reasons presented in that AfD mostly apply to this one as well. -- int19h 14:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Something like this could be a legitimate article, but this isn't it. OR, Essay, etc. MarkBul 15:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Lack of references is not an excuse. An administrator/editoe should find them himself if that botheres him, or should just shut-up. A good article nicely written. It needs references that's all. With the time it will be added references and stereotypes on more white groups and it will beckome even more good. M.V.E.i. 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Lack of references may not always be a legitimate reason for deletion, but original research is. As itstands, the article represents what is most likely an observation of the author. If you can find appropriate sources, by all means add the, but I doubt the sources exist, because as I've said before, the article is not even very accurate, providing highly generalized and narrowly focused information. And no, referencing isn't the only problem. Calgary 20:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, all that's written their is often-used stereotypes. I havent ready anything here i havent heard or read or seen somewhere before. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: That isn't true. Original research is NOT listed amongst Reasons for Deletion according to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Furthermore, although it is true that some content was probably added just based on the contributor's personal experiences and not actual academic sources, there are definitely sources out there. I'm not an expert about stereotypes of whites, but I know for a fact that there are entire books written about content relevant to this article. --Drenched 19:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's not lack of references as such which is the problem, it is the fact that no reliable sources can possibly be found for the claims in the article, since it's essentially an essay. Therefore, it falls under "article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources", which is a valid reason for deletion. -- int19h 05:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree that this article falls under the "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" reason for deletion...just because it isn't right now, doesn't mean it can't possibly be. Again, I'm not an expert on the topic, but there are sources out there about these issues! All I did was a simple internet search, and I came up with plenty of published material about White identity/image/stereotypes: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. See? Now all someone has to do is read it and rehash it and cite it on this page. I'm not vouching for all of the current content of the article, but this is a legitimate subject matter, and is verifiable. --Drenched 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I suppose I fail at being a white American male, as I could not care less about football, surfing or beer. Seriously, though, this article is a terrible mess of original research and unverified claims. If there is an encyclopedic article to be found along these lines it is so far away from what exists here that a wholesale deletion and starting from scratch would be the best way to find it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude the article is about stereotypes. The thing about stereotypes is that they are not always right. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree. The article may go against point-of-fiew requirements. I find football and surfing boring and hate beer. TheInfinityZero 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• DUDE THOSE ARE STEREOTYPES, it doesn't mean that all USAians are really like that, but the stereotype is they are. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• There's also the fact that, in spite of the "whites" in the title this article appears to be more a collection of selected stereotypes by nationality, not race. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• White are not one ethnic group, white is a race. But that race includes many ethnic group, on each ethnic group from the white race there are written the stereotypes on it. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• That's because there is no white race, so the article attempts to encompass all of the many nationalities and ethnicities that could be considered white. Calgary 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is a white race, just like there is a mongoloid race and african race. It has nothing to do with nationalism, it's a colection of stereotypes, and those stereotypes exist. M.V.E.i. 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's because there are both broad and narrow stereotypes. Some stereotypes (e.g. the dumb blonde, etc.) don't pertain to any specific nationality and are applied to Caucasians of various nationalities. Other stereotypes (e.g. the Irish are heavy drinkers) are applied only to specific nationalities. This article discusses both types of stereotypes. --Drenched 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Quash! Quick make it go away before it spreads like cancer per theinfinityzero. !paradigm! 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)!paradigm!

Ah? That was weird. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article is terribly scattered, attempting to list the many (unrelated) stereotypes that are associated with specific ethnic groups that are commonly grouped as "white" (and keep in mind that "white" is a census term, not an ethnic group). Anyway, the entire thing is jumbled together, and the information itself is original research/very inaccurate. The information, in a sourced form, belongs in the specific articles of the respective ethnic groups. Calgary 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• White is a race, and here they listed stereotypes on different ethnic groups from that race. If it needs fixing that's one thing, but not deletion. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete Not that a good article couldn't be written--- David Allen Grier, Eddie Murphy, John Boy and Billy, and other comedians have made many a good observation about the stereotypical white American. This article, as pointed out by others, is actually an umbrella for stereotypes about different European-American groups... Wasps, Limeys, Micks, Wops, Krauts, etc. and it's too broad. There are sources for that type of information. William R. Helmreich wrote a book about stereotypes called The Things They Say Behind Your Back, and I'm sure there are others. Mandsford 00:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Then you dont vote delete but Evolve, because what you say is that the theme has place to be but it should be upgraded by the writing level. M.V.E.i. 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, dumbass, I vote delete. Let someone who has some talent write an article. Mandsford 16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete none of those !voting to keep have made a convincing refutation of the idea that this is OR, and much of the non-U.S. content is made up of a national stereotypes, not racial ones. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

AND THAT'S WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete lots of synthesis linked together under a broad topic Corpx 06:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. OR, SYNTH and inherently POV. Thin Arthur 05:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I disagree that this article is "inherently POV." It's POV if you try to perpetuate the belief that any of the stereotypes are true, but it isn't POV to say that these stereotypes exist. --Drenched 20:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I removed some vandalism from this article a while back using Vandal Proof, and did not give it a serious look regarding its seriousness at the time. However, the point of this article is already covered under Stereotype, and there is really no need for an article like this regarding any race/ethnicity/self-identifier. This article is clearly WP:OR, and certainly a collection of trivia placing it at odds with Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Hiberniantears 17:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But it has not the collection of the stereotypes themselves like here. M.V.E.i. 18:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Some background: this is an article originally split from Ethnic stereotypes in American media with sister pages Stereotypes of Asians, Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks, Stereotypes of Latinos, Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites, and Stereotypes of American Indians. Stereotypes of the various nationalities encompassed within the Caucasian race exist and have been academically studied and should have an entry in this encyclopedia. Bias and OR as cited in many of the deletion arguments above are major flaws of this article, but are not a grounds for deletion according to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and can be corrected. Furthermore, this article is not saying that the stereotypes listed are true. A lot of people making deletion arguments saying "Hey, I'm White and I don't like football, this page is crap!" don't seem to understand what a stereotype is: (at the stereotypes wiki article, it specifically says "Stereotypes are rarely completely accurate, based on some kernel of truth, or completely fabricated"). The purpose of the article is to document existing stereotypes and what scholars have to say about them, not to perpetuate the stereotypes as true. I feel that the subject matter is legitimate and deserving of an article, and a lot of the deletion arguments either point out flaws that aren't grounds for deletion, or misunderstand what the article is about entirely. --Drenched 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites was also merged into this article, which is another reason to keep it. And i totally agree with you. M.V.E.i. 21:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Drenched. But it includes numerous OR statements, as correctly noted by AfD nominator.Biophys 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: there has been some canvassing going on: see [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. MER-C 03:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And what's the problem with that? I called up for some of those that were involved in the article ("it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions"). I remind you that 2 of those i called voted Delete. I notified them about the discussion, and stated my own opinion and what i did for the article. I dont understand what's the problem with that. I didnt say "you must", i said that i hope and i think. Besides only now i saw that there are laws against that, hhh it's also the first time in my life i saw a word Canvassing. M.V.E.i. 09:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Useless, full of OR, and unnecessary. Jmlk17 10:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not challenging your discretion as an admin, and of course you're not obligated to explain your vote, but I am curious about your reasoning behind your belief that the page is "useless" and "unnecessary." Do you think all the ethnic-stereotypes pages (e.g. Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians) are unnecessary and should be deleted, or just one for white stereotypes? --Drenched 02:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Useless?? Usefull, and very. A fact that i for example searched for an article with the theme on the Wikipedia already shows it's usefull. If you dont like it's "full of OR", dont complain fix it yourself. It's easy to say whats wrong, but trying improving is a different story. M.V.E.i. 08:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I normally do try and fix articles, but I don't think this one should even be around. Jmlk17 08:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have a question, how many articles did you create? I just noticed that to delete, nominate or vote for deletion for you is like kicking a stone. I just guess that someone who knows the process of creating articles and how not easy it is would be more smart with the thing. M.V.E.i. 08:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well M.V., I have like 17,000 edits over the past two years, including several creations. I prefer not to create them, rather, I do my admin chores around here usually instead. But beyond that, I feel I no longer need to explain my delete !vote. Jmlk17 08:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• The "edits" statistics is nothing. You add a delition template and bingo, you have another edit. Ad a word, another edit. As i understood from your words, you try to show your not useless by being brutal. I know real administrators, who create articles, who really contribute to Wikipedia and they behave smart and respectfuly, because they know the process from the inside. M.V.E.i. 14:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Guys, you miss the point - It's a usefull article, a theme that has place to be, and as i can see different editors improve it and add information to it all the time. Those who got insulted here by the sterotypes, it ain't execly shows their to smart. Stereotypes means this information is mostly not correct. A smurt man won't get insulted on humour, i'm half Russian half Jewish and i added both to the Russians section, and re-created the Jews section. Those who say it lacks references or has to much "or's", dont be lazy, take part, fix. And besides, those are NOT reasons to delete. Those are reasons to keep the article so editors could come and improve it. With the time it's level will go up. The fact that so much editors edited it and added information already shows it has place to be. M.V.E.i. 08:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and fix.--Steven X 10:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. ~ Wikihermit 22:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep - this needs a helluva lot of work, but this is not the place to sort that out -- Roleplayer 00:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per Jmlk17. Article is pretty well useless. Lychosis ^T/C 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Many here explained why it's useful and interesting. M.V.E.i. 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, i'll explain again. I always wanted to know what the stereotypes on Irish and Scots are (except the skurt), and here i found out what they are. OFFCOURSE i dont agree with them, but at least i know what they are now. Why is it useful? i know how they were treated and insolted by the society, and i can find how to prove that the stereotypes are false. M.V.E.i. 05:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article is full of synthesis of different white nationality stereotypes without an over-arching white stereotype. The few citations that are included are for specific nationality stereotypes. There may be no stereotypes of whites, since whites are the majority group where they live. Only minorities get stereotyped.----^DarkTea© 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• White are a race, not nationality. So this page collects stereotypes about different nationalities from the white race. Theres no other way. M.V.E.i. 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I respectfully disagree that minorities are the only ones who get stereotyped. Sure, they may get it worse, but there are overarching "White" stereotypes too. If White stereotypes don't exist, how do you account for labels such as WASP, dumb blonde, and white trash? --Drenched 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Minorities? We Russians are the 7th biggest nation in the world by population and 1rst by the size of the land, minority?? Actually mostly those who are usually majorities get stereotyped. Actually for now we mostly lack the minorities but have mostly the big once stereotyped. M.V.E.i. 05:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This article can be improved. It is important to keep as part of the series of racial stereotypes. Bad writing, lack of citations, and editorializing are flaws that can always be corrected. — Emiellaiendiay 00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Split - if possible. Much of the content should be deleted as OR, the remainder split into separate articles: Stereotypes of White Americans, Sterotypes of English People, Stereotypes of French People, etc. GideonF 17:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That will just be many little articles. M.V.E.i. 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it will.GideonF 20:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — pathetic OR. Not a single published reliable or academic source is listed. --Hillock65 20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So if that bothers you, YOU find them, voting delete is the easiest thing. Besides, it's NOT a reason for deletion. It's a reason to put those cool citation needed things near arguable statements, it means the article needs to be improved, but not deleted. And what "academic source" do you want?? Sereotypes are rarely there, and mostly in movies or cartoons. M.V.E.i. 11:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sorry. Bearian 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• {{split}}. Already the contorted title "stereotypes of ethnic groups from the white race" shows that this isn't a valid topic. Salvage whatever is valid and do articles about individual ethnic stereotypes (Dutch, French, German, English, etc.), if there is sufficient sourced material. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. No one has given any valid reasons to delete the article, besides OR, POV, lack of references, etc. These are not valid criteria for deletion. If we're going to delete this article, we might as well delete all of the other stereotypes articles: Stereotypes of blacks, Stereotypes of Asians, Stereotypes of Hispanics, Stereotypes of Native Americans, etc. None of these articles meet the criteria for deletion, and neither does this one. Jagged 85 14:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. By those arguments we could close 2/3 of Wikipedia. M.V.E.i. 16:29, 5 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. WjBscribe 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congregation (worship)

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

Contested PROD. Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a definiton. ~ Wikihermit 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki as a clear dicdef. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It already has been transwikied. The issue is what to do with it now. :) - TexasAndroid 14:05, 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. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Dakota American Legion Baseball

NN high school baseball league, only 17 direct google hits not counting duplicates, fails WP:N, and WP:V, also nominating the teams in the league. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 13:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP--What's the reason for deletion????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopold Samsonite (talk • contribs) 14:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
  • See above, fails wikipedia policies. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. MarkBul 15:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Re-direct to American Legion Baseball. Having an article on this one league is like having articles on all the separate Little Leagues. Spanneraol 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Per WP:ORG: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources." No reliable sources. Redirect only the state-level article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think the individual team articles are just this side of being eligible for speedy deletion as non-notable groups. —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done with speeding them. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I do not think we need to cover HS baseball in this detail, considering the lack of notability Corpx 06:06, 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 keep. Majorly (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mucotomy

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

Contested PROD. Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid 13:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - as a medical procedure, I believe it has potential to be expanded. (whoops, an inadvertent dangling modifier joke) After all, we have an article on penectomy and hemicorporectomy as well. --Agamemnon2 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Agamemnon. It's currently a definition, but being a medical procedure can be expanded. ~ Wikihermit 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - All stub articles begin with the most basic definition. The article exists first in wikipedia before being copied in the wiktionary project. Here in wikipedia, we can add more depth in the said article such penectomy and hemicorporectomy, which we cant in wiktionary because its a dictionary. Improve, don't remove †Bloodpack† 22:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep ExpandableMbisanz 06:14, 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 Redirected to Indian cricket team in England in 2007, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] India vs England 2007 Cricket Series

India vs England 2007 Cricket Series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. An individual cricket series is not notable enough for it's own article, IMHO. TexasAndroid 12:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this one, keep the real one Presumably you will also nominate the real article on the Indian cricket team in England in 2007 as your nomination didn't say that this [34] brief little stub was an unneeded duplicate, but that the series as a whole wasn't notable. Perhaps you don't understand the major importance of a test series, nor are aware of the dozens of similar articles on Wikipedia. This is an entirely misguided nomination and should be withdrawn ASAP if it's regarding the main cricket article on the tour. If it's just about deleting the stub mentioned, then fair enough, it's superfluous but your reason for wanting it deleted is the wrong one. Nick mallory 13:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from presuming what I will or will not do. You have no knowledge of such, and no basis on which to make such false presumptions. This nomination is about the listed article and nothing more. The listed article has no sources, gives no assertion of notability, and no hint that it is supposed to be for something bigger. The "real" article you mention has none of these failings. I had searched for articles for other years following the naming pattern in the listed article and found none before I PRODed this yesterday. The listed article totally fails to give any context to why the event is important, and fails to give any clues to someone like me, lacking that context, to allow me to find the context.

I personally would still not consider a Cricket series to be notable, but given the well sourced and referenced nature of the "real" article I would never presume to submit such an article for deletion. In such an issue of personal feelings vs the reality of the article meeting the guidelines so well, my personal feelings would definitely lose out.

So in the end, the nomination remains, but is indeed for only the listed article, though more because of it being a duplicate than for my original reasons. Is there any point to just redirecting the listed article to the real article, or would that be a worthless redirect? - TexasAndroid 13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You're supposed to research AfD's to save everyone this kind of pointless work. The nominated article should have been deleted because it's a pointless duplicate of the extensive article which is already written. Your reason for nomination though is entirely invalid, such a tour absolutely is notable. You're right in wanting it deleted, wrong in your reason. This is important because a precedent shouldn't be set in which cricket tours are deleted. I fail to see how how failed to find the 'real' article as it's number one on google if you type England India Cricket 2007 or any similar combination. Anyway, do you see my point here? The best thing to do would be to immediately redirect it, which I'm sure you would have done if you'd found the proper article yesterday. Nick mallory 13:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to walk away from this discussion. Further "woulda/coulda" discussions are just going to inflame emotions to no good end. I think I did a decent effort (described above) to research this givent the lack of context of the sub-stub. You disagree. Points made on both sides and further discussion of the issue serves no purpose beyond antagonizing one or the other of us, which is to noone's benefit. This AFD is on the linked article only, and is now because it is a duplicate. That's what is important. - TexasAndroid 14:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's redirected now so this can be closed. Nick mallory 13:56, 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 - seems to be consensus to delete. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Home Unix Machine Brisbane User Group

Home Unix Machine Brisbane User Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Previously survived a Keep vote in first AFD back in 05. An author kept PRODding the article although a earlier speedy tag was contested by another poster. So taking article to AFD as per procedure. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• No vote from me --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An unecyclopedic article gathers no references establishing notability. --Richmeister_talk 15:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If you have a problem with it not having references, you find those references. The easiest thing is to nominate for deletion. M.V.E.i. 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No improvement to article's references or notability since it survived AfD in 2005. alexis+kate=? 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Weak assertion of notability but fails WP:V. Dbromage [Talk] 23:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources, so it fails WP:ORG. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm involved with HUMBUG. HUMBUG is as notable as many other user groups that have not come up for AfD. Robert Brockway 04:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment My concern is that policy is not being fairly applied. HUMBUG has had 2 AfDs and a speedy delete and other comparable LUGs/UUGs have not been touched. For example Linux Users' Group of Davis, Tidewater Unix Users Group, Zlug and Linux Users of Victoria. Robert Brockway 04:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Home Unix Machine Brisbane User Group has several points which add to its notability. The first being that it has played host to the southern hemispheres largest Linux User Conference (linux.conf.au), it is the home group of former Debian Project Leader Anthony Towns, and its broad focus at a time when home Unix/Linux use was just starting to get off the ground. Purserj 05:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Any reliable sources that back up those claims? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply But of course :) Linux.conf.au was hosted by HUMBUG in 2002. More to come. Robert Brockway 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Anthony Towns' involvement with HUMBUG is well documented. Let's use Anthony's (AJ's) own website & blog AJ's website, AJ's blog. AJ uses his humbug.org.au email address as a general purpose address. If you look at "man interfaces" on any Debian or Ubuntu box you'll see that AJ used his HUMBUG email address in there. Robert Brockway 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply The age of HUMBUG is well established (thus it was active before OSS/Linux was popular). HUMBUG mail archives from 1995. There was more mail than that but the archives are incomplete. Robert Brockway 14:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Hi Robert - sorry hun but since a search of your name on humbug.org.au gives almost 7000 hits, I think you might be too close. alexis+kate=? 14:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply In both AfDs I have explicitely stated by involvement with HUMBUG. This involvement does not invalidate the citations that I have supplied as requested though. Robert Brockway 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Ideally you wouldn't be voting on this or editing the page in question at all... seems like a conflict of interest... but you do get points for using your real name on here. alexis+kate=? 16:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not aware of any requirement to avoid being involved in an AfD just because one is involved in the topic. I have explicitely declared my involvement with HUMBUG in both AfDs so it could be taken in to account when the AfD is finalised - an AfD is not a vote afterall. Robert Brockway 17:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • As the for the question of me editing the page, this is not a page about me, but about a club I am involved with. My edits have always been NPOV. Anyway, enough said on this as it is drifting from the AfD. Robert Brockway 17:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • If Robert is too close substitute my own name for his in the above References. I was going to come on this morning and find the links to verify the statements I had made, but Robert had beat me to it. Purserj 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Complete lack of independent references means this article fails WP:ORG. --Gavin Collins 10:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per failing to meet WP:ORG. -- Roleplayer 03:22, 6 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 Keep Especially in light of the recently-concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures, it seems there are reasonable disagreements regarding the encyclopedic notability of these creatures. As the article is sourced, policy does not demand its deletion, and the discussion below favors retaining the article for the moment. Xoloz 19:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons)

Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable fictional monster. Sole sources are monstrous manual entries, with no independent references. Eyrian 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep - see my rationale at Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons). Artw 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Significant creature within the D&D game, based on creature from mythology, that has been around from the start. BOZ 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--Per Boz.--Robbstrd 21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because you are not interested in Dungeons & Dragons does not mean that D&D-related articles are not notable. Clearly people who have zero amount of fame or are only famous in their neighborhoods are not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, even an online encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of articles and a seemingly unlimited amount of space; that's what user pages are for. Fan fiction is also usually not considered notable. These articles, however, are notable. There are hundreds of thousands of other people, perhaps even millions, who are interested in Dungeons & Dragons. Let's look at the advantages and disadvantages of keeping or deleting these articles.
  
  Advantages of keeping: These are creatures that frequently appear in numerous popular novels (such as the best-selling and widely popular Drizzt Do'Urden novels, as well as hundreds of other novels) and games (computer and video games and also old-fashioned pen, paper, and dice games); these articles have helpful, interesting, and detailed background information for those wishing to know more about the creatures; and the casual person browsing Wikipedia who knows nothing of the subject but wants to can easily learn by reading these articles or by simply scanning the first paragraph (for example, I was interested in the Star Wars Expanded Universe but knew absolutely nothing about it, so I read various articles that some editors are want to call "not notable" or "fancruft" and quickly became quite educated on the subject).
  
  Disadvantages of keeping: It increases Wikipedia's bandwidth by an infinitesimal amount, or perhaps the subjects of these creature articles might feel offended by how they are represented in the articles and sue for libel. Also, perhaps some religious zealots might think these articles are blasphemy.
  
  Advantages of deleting: Are there any? Perhaps appeasing editors who like to delete things or have a grudge against fiction, or perhaps to follow a guideline such as Wikipedia:Notability or WP:FICT. But how will that benefit Wikipedia?
  
  Disadvantages of deleting: Basically, people will be deprived of everything I mentioned in "Advantages of keeping."
  
  Merging: Not a good idea. This would create a giant page that would take forever to load and, when loaded, would slow down computers. Some might advise greatly condensing the information so that the page of merges is smaller, but that is completely unnecessary. People could easily find these articles by using the search engine, typing the name in the URL, following a link from another article, or looking at Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures. They don't need to be condensed and merged into a single page.--71.107.178.64 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment (copied from larger debate) - Notability is a guideline, not a rule. In my opinion, the proposing editor is trying to prove a point, which is that the fine points of the notability guideline are mandates from on high as to which articles are worthy and which are not. If the proposing editor can come up with a secondary reason than "we must have secondary sources!" to delete this batch, then he may have a point, but if that's all he's got then his argument is weak. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and in this case the consensus is clear. BOZ 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to a D&D Wiki. In-dept coverage of a unit in a game belongs there Corpx 14:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Kind of weak keep - BOZ says it fairly well for me. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if we're going to be cataloging D&D creatures there's no reason to specifically eliminate this fairly popular one. --Hanging Jack 15:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The same arguments made for the mass nomination apply here, shouldn't there be some form of double jeopardy against this kind of vexatious nomination?KTo288 17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - In fairness to the nom, double jeopordy wouldn't apply, since this was first listed on the 21st of August. Looks like there was an error with the nomination, and a bot fixed it - so it now appears on the 28th, after the other mass moninaton for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures was closed. No bad faith involved. That being said, see below. ◄Zahakiel► 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, slap my own hand and repeat 'I must assume good faith' a hundred times.KTo288 18:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Per the discussion and my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons)). ◄Zahakiel► 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures and Boz above. Ealdgyth | Talk 13:08, 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. — TKD::Talk 07:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beattie Elementary School

Beattie Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notability Chris 22:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Nom does not cite a policy.--WaltCip 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sign of notability. Anarchia 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability + WP is not a directory Corpx 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete notability not asserted, unreferenced. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The page was existing for years, if this is not notable for deletion, many of such pages will be has same fates. Roded86400 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Dbromage [Talk] 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 04:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• redirect this one to the lincoln nebraska article in a school section please yuckfoo 07:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This has sat around in AfD since mid-August, plenty of time for someone with an interest to make an article out of this directory item. There isn't even enough information here to make it worth some kind of merge into Lincoln, Nebraska. The info on the principal, for all we know, is outdated already. As a rule of thumb: If the deletion discussion has used up more of editors' time than the work on the article ever did, it's time for deletion. Noroton 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)