Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< August 6 August 8 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recreation of deleted content that doesn't address the reasons for the previous deletions; pages salted. Chaser - T 05:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halloweentown: She's the Witch

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Halloweentown: She's the Witch Articles for deletion/Halloweentown: She's the Witch (2nd nomination)
Halloweentown: She's the Witch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Recreation of deleted material. Re-recreation if you count Halloweentown: She's a Witch. A possible Disney Channel movie that may (or may not) be released in October of 2008, so very crystal ball-ish. If deleted, please salt this and all the variants as well (Halloweentown: She's a Witch, Halloweentown: She's A Witch, Halloweentown: She's The Witch). Ebyabe 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. If the movie is ever made, it will probably have its own article. Until then, it probably will remain non notable.--Stormbay 02:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters. — Scientizzle 15:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darth Nihilus

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Darth Nihilus Articles for deletion/Darth Nihilus' Slaves Articles for deletion/Darth Nihilus (2nd nomination)
Darth Nihilus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails to meet WP:WAF, WP:N. Only real-world commentary is in the trivia section and is about a fan who dressed up as this character -- perhaps making the fan notable (if at all), but not this character. Yes, Darth Nihilus plays an important role in KOTOR2, as clearly articulated in the 2005 VFD -- however, more than two years later this remains mostly just a plot summary of the character's role in the game. Even for all the assertions of in-universe importance, the content of this article is pretty small. Apparently, this fellow is getting an action figure -- perhaps worth mentioning in the KOTOR2 article, or in List_of_Star_Wars_Knights_of_the_Old_Republic_characters. EEMeltonIV 23:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also listing the following article for similar reasons -

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Darth Sion
  • question Can't we just redirect this to whatever media it is they appear in? FrozenPurpleCube 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Damn it!! We need to fix this article up ASAP. Greg Jones II 02:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all to List_of_Star_Wars_Knights_of_the_Old_Republic_characters per nom. Might be worth considering breaking that list out into three articles: one for characters appearing in both games, and one for each of the games individually... it is starting to get rather large. JulesH 09:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think an article should remain given that there is no new arguement for it's deletion that wasn't already covered in a previous, unsuccessful AfD. Irishjp 10:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is not a compelling argument to keep. Additionally, interpretations of policy two years later I imagine are pretty different. It looks to me that most of the "arguments" to keep in previous AfDs come down to, "The character is important in Star Wars." However, WP:WAF requires notability in the real world, which none of these articles assert, and which I doubt any of these subjects actually have. --EEMeltonIV 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above; let's not be too immediateist here. — Deckiller 16:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this argument is not much diffrent from the last "delete nihilus" argument. BassxForte 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 03:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic characters, and possibly to individual game articles, unless reliable secondary sources discussing the characters can be found. However, I'm pretty liberal about what I'd consider reliable sources — an article discussing the character in the Star Wars magazine would probably do. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • If you feel you really must do something with the articles, merge the articles, into some kind of "Characters of Knights ofthe Old Republic", just copy the information form the character's page (minus the trivia sections). BassxForte 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Igor Borogan

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

Stub about a non-notable person and also is orphaned.  Jonjonbt 23:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: Non-notable, could not find any reliable source. Tomj 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this hoax. This article makes no sense whatsoever, so maybe even speedy it under G1. 0 Ghits, even in Cyrillic (Игорь Бороган). In the Euro 2003 championships, there was one Moldovan contender, but in a different weight category ([1]). I think it's fair to presume no such person exists. Furthermore, the article was created by a SPA and later distorted into its present shape by another ephemeral user (all of 3 edits - including the creation of Yellow dog (design), a hoax I'll nominate for deletion as soon as I'm finished here). --Targeman 00:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - possible hoax. A search for Igor Borogan reveals no information aside from wiki mirrors. For a competitive athlete, that is highly unusual as he would appear in competition results. According to the results from the 2003 European Weightlifting Championships, there is no Igor Borogan competing int he 69 kilo class. -- Whpq 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. This is a non-admin closure, due to the obvious nature of it due to only having keep votes and the nominator's withdrawal. Mathmo Talk 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Drury

Not notable, tagged as such over 3 months ago. Fails WP:BLP due to lack of non-trivial third party sources. Burntsauce 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - I don't really see why an article should be deleted just because it is a stub. Why not just expand upon it? I just did a search on him and already found a bunch of stuff that could be added to the article. I recommend looking here. [2] Eggy49er 00:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • A quick note, I updated the article now and also sourced non trivial third party sources. Eggy49er 01:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Looks notable by all the awards. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination in light of recent improvements, the awards (which are sourced) now convince me that this passes bio guidelines. Burntsauce 18:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge into Hot Fuzz. MastCell Talk 20:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandford (Hot Fuzz)

Sandford (Hot Fuzz) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article covers a fictional town only used in the film Hot Fuzz. If this fictional village was included in a long-running television series or multiple films it would probably be acceptable to include. This article doesn't appear to be notable enough to include on Wikipedia based on its inclusion in just one film. I'll carry over one of the screenshots into the main film article, but the screenshot of the village should be deleted along with the article since it would no longer be needed. Nehrams2020 23:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete but move the referenced trivia into the main article under a production section or such. The article fails the notability criteria and WP:NOT under wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. Seraphim Whipp 23:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to the main article, which would be more appropriate than it's rather short article--JForget 23:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The name 'Sandford' was used for the film because it's the name of the police training 'village' in Cheshire which the British police use for riot control simulations etc. Here's a whole BBC article on it [3]. I'll add this to the article. It's covered by a range of sources and is real world information beyond the film itself. Nick mallory 00:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As much as I love this movie (if you haven't seen it, go rent it. NOW!), I don't see the need for a separate article about this one fictional village, even if it has been discussed by 3rd party sources, which it has. Maybe one day "Sanford" will become a widely-used shorthand for small-town England or police incompetence, but until then, I can't really defend this article :-(. --Targeman 01:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I feel the same way...the film is legendary but there's just no reason to have an article on it...even though it's discussed using sources, this info can very easily be added to the main Hot Fuzz article. Seraphim Whipp 13:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with main film page. Simply south 21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hot Fuzz. I don't see why this wasn't done without discussion. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with main film page. The real police training village mentioned by Nick mallory sounds more appropriate for an article. --Moonriddengirl 10:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge The real use of Sandford as a police training scenario/generic town for UK police is much more appropriate for an article, with that article having a mention of the use of Sandford in the movie as a reference to said generic training town. It's a great movie, but this article would be better served as part of the entry for Hot Fuzz and a separate entry for say Sandford (Police Training Center) that mentions the use fictional Sandford as a reference to the training village. --Wingsandsword 00:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sweet, I added the coordinates so you can check it out in Google Earth :-) --Targeman 01:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per JForget. JPG-GR 03:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JB & the gang

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/JB & the gang
JB & the gang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local band. Possible self promotion. Despite many hits, most MySpace. Simply south 23:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC dissolvetalk 06:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no assertion of notability and a search doesn't reveal any sources that would indicate notability -- Whpq 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heroism (computer game)

Heroism (computer game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game by a non-notable company, with a conflict of interest in the article to boot. The Evil Spartan 23:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I Realize the Mistake - I now realize that I have breached the rules in that I, the creator of the game, posted an article about their own creation. However, I did have the best intentions and tried to be as neutral as possible (I rewrote everything, did not use my normal promotional text; heck, the whole process was actually a lot of fun). I am removing the least neutral part, the forum banner part as its wording probably was the most controversial.

Of course, I would love people to add more and to edit it. Originally, one of the players said they wanted to make an article for Heroism, which gave me the idea.

ZoopTEK 01:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, not yet notable. No prejudice to recreate if it does become notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a moment - Okay, I still understand that Heroism's article does not follow the rules. However, I just found out that some of my fans actually made a ZoopTEK page a while back that was also deleted for advertising. If possible, could I be shown the old ZoopTEK page to see how bad it really was? Supposedly it was quick-deleted.

Regardless, there are numerous reviews of ZoopTEK's games which can be used as references even if I do not write the article. Google "Paint Ball 3 EXTREME" (which got 80,000 downloads and was quite popular to the younger crowd), "Zomband" (probably one of the more popular zombie rogue-likes right now, getting hundreds of downloads a month), and "Mastery" for a quick look.

The best case scenario is that if the ZoopTEK article is revived, the work on this Heroism page could not be wasted and be moved into the ZoopTEK article.

Thanks.

ZoopTEK 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Wait -- This seems like an acceptable solution. Rebuild the zooptek main page, then merge whatever portions of this page are relevant, useful, and fit WP:NPOV.

--209.43.1.25 18:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

ZoopTEK has had its moments of popularity... particularly three years ago when Paint Ball 3 EXTREME had not yet been retired. But right now, I admit... it's not doing as well. Heroism is the new fancy game, but it will take time for it to find its place on game review websites. If I put this up three years ago, it probably would not have been such a debate. Thanks for reading! - ZoopTEK 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

    • For what it's worth, ZoopTek does not enter into this article - so just how notable ZoopTEK is is absolutely not relevant here. We're looking to see just how notable Heroism the game is. Also, note thhat if you recreate the ZoopTEK article, it will be seen as a conflict of interest - my suggestion is to wait for somebody else to write it. See WP:COI. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Again, I know this does not relate to the Heroism article. And I know the Heroism article will probably be shut down. I acknowledge all of this and I am totally okay with it! I'm not trying to be argumentative either. I was simply responding to Moonriddengirl about ZoopTEK's notability. - ZoopTEK 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best read blind

Best read blind (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

notability Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge to the main article as it would more appropriate there with some trimming too.--JForget 23:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable university group, plus bizarrely placed discussion of a TV show. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 21:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's very little context in this article, which makes it a bit hard to judge, but research suggests it would fail notability even if it were expanded. There's very little out there about it, and what there is still doesn't tell who they are or why they're encyclopedic. --Moonriddengirl 11:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per nom, Moonriddengirl and Eliz81. I'm not sure if WP:HOLE] applies to groups, but if it does, it applies here. Even after reading the article, I can not figure out what is notable about it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrab

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

The article is basically a repeat of what is discussed in the Oddworld page. This topic does not need its own page. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 23:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - no sources discussing Scrabs, not significant for their own article. --Huon 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some reliable sources can be found attesting notability. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin). Page meets WP:BAND criteria as a spill-over of other notables. Any problems with content should be resolved by editing, not deletion. Thanks! --Cerejota 01:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B.R.O.T.H.E.R movement

B.R.O.T.H.E.R movement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced for over a year, and still no hits on Google about this group. Non-neutral, non-verifiable. Listed for AfD rather than prod due to age. Hersfold (talk/work) 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete A7 for non-notable group, obviously non-notable if Google hasn't heard of it. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Google has heard of it, though; please see below. It's only a small handful of results, but I'm sure there are more hiding in other areas of the web that are heard to search. — xDanielxTalk 23:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. It's hard to search for sources when you have such a large acronym which I'm guessing is rarely written out, and a search for "brother" is of course useless. Still, I'm not sure how you're getting "no hits on Google." I see some, unless I'm going mad. This page has a good description, which the article seems to be almost entirely premised on. (Note however, that plagiarism is a reason to modify an article, not delete it.) The Discogs looks rather mediocre to me in terms of credibility, but Google confirms that it's at least not a hoax -- you can even see the group here. My main motivation for a very weak keep is not the Discogs article or the video, but the fact that many of the members are individually notable, and they seem to be connected in a meaningful way. So, very weak keep per spillover notability. — xDanielxTalk 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom not notable and unreferenced. Harlowraman 00:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo Talk 03:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Plagiarism is a reason for speedy deletion if there is not a clean version of the article to revert to (CSD#12). However, I think that the movement merits keeping because it seems to satisfy music notability guidelines in that it was a band, however briefly, that contained at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. Redirects won't work, because it contained more than one prominent member. Needs rewriting and quickly, though, to eliminate that potential plagiarism. (I say potential because so many places seem to take their text from Wikipedia that I have a chicken/egg uncertainty about sites like that one.) --Moonriddengirl 11:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been rewritten to deal with any copyvio concerns. Other than that, meets the requirements of WP:BAND. Nuttah68 07:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosa Isaak

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

Non-notable espionage bio, Yahoo! search returns nothing, orphaned page, no edits since 2005. -Old Hoss 16:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Minor player in an American Soviet espionage ring. Her role amounts to one or two sentences in this book--Sethacus 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I dont think the position she served in is inherently notable and does not look like she did anything that gathered coverage while in that position Corpx 03:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Notability not evident from article.--Mantanmoreland 16:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge into Statistics Canada. MastCell Talk 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto Region -- Statistics Canada Research Data Centre (Toronto RDC)

Toronto Region -- Statistics Canada Research Data Centre (Toronto RDC) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I really don't see how this is more notable than any other stats can facility, of which, none of them are notable. Delete GreenJoe 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge with Statistics Canada. Kudos to nom for notifying creator of article who last contributed (and briefly) in 2006. Canuckle 23:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as explained above as well as the addition of the other regions all in two-three lines only.--JForget 23:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • A list of RDCs would be perfectly valid content in Statistics Canada's article (which isn't all that long and could use the expansion), but none of them is notable enough for its own separate article. Merge. Bearcat 01:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Statistics Canada. I agree with the comments above. The Statistics Canada article would be an appropriate home for the few lines here, which seems not notable itself and unlikely to expand further. --Malcolmxl5 21:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oktay eser

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

Autobiography. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Comment That he has written four books seems to be the only notable fact. Any info about these books anyone? Were they bestsellers or acclaimed publications? --Malcolmxl5 08:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. There is an assertation of notability of sort on the talk page "[he] has made contributions to the mutual understanding between different cultures", which I have added to the article but it needs independent verification. --Malcolmxl5 08:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Translating poetry and writing language textbooks does not make you notable by any stretch. And all translators can claim they make "contributions to the mutual understanding between different cultures". I would know, I'm a translator. --Targeman 11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Uncertain I just note that writing widely used textbooks is one of the reasons for notability at WP:PROF, but it does not seem to apply here. DGG (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC) -- changed on the basis of the comments below. DGG (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I can read and speak Turkish. The books here are not the English teaching books. One of the book titles tells us that it contains elements of Translation Philosophy, which is a field in its infancy, so this makes him notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.151.66 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Translation philosophy (or philosophy of translation) is by no means in its infancy, it has been around for centuries, arguably since Jerome. --Targeman 11:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Correct, but Translation philosophy has been a hot-debated topic for quite a long time. But we must take into consideration the fact that it was just named as Translation Studies in 1975. Some new theories came into life afterwards. The theories put forward in the past are helpful, but not scientific.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.151.66 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Translating poetry is not easy at all. I think this quality is of importance to anybody interested in literature.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.24.237 (talk • contribs) — 85.97.24.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. Wow, does that mean I can write an article about myself? I've translated poetry too, and you're right, it's a major pain in the ;! --Targeman 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Translated poetry here have all been published.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.151.66 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep He is a lecturer at university. His works need not be best-sellers. They are of academic importance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.95.77 (talk • contribs) — 85.101.95.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • See my comment above. --Targeman 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 23:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Relisting - some keep points raised by 3 anon users near closing time. I think we better have more input on these. - Nabla 23:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry but I REALLY do not like the way the article is laid out, AT ALL. --Malcolmxl5 21:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - if he published original works on translation philosophy, the article doesn't say so. No English language sources; I can't read the Turkish sources given, but forewords and publishers don't make independent, reliable sources anyway. --Huon 21:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Why not keep. He is a translator, a lecturer, and an author of several books. He is certain to serve the society in different ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.180.251 (talk • contribs) — 212.156.180.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
  • Strong keep - The book entitled "Çeviri de Bizim Dilimiz" deals with the philosophy of translation in which one can read about poetry translation, text-types and how they function, and how the decision-making process occurs in the translator's mind. This is all about the philosophy thereof. In addition, the title being in Turkish, but not in English should not be an obstacle. On the contrary, it is a pinch of taste for us all. Therefore, we had better "keep" this in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.236.134 (talk • contribs) — 85.101.236.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 02:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Callum Hale Thomson

Callum Hale Thomson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Individual clearly apperas to be non-notable, and author has a conflict of interest. The only reason I didn't tag db is because it asserts notability. The Evil Spartan 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete The NYFA site does back up the claim. Still has severe neutrality issues, however, and doesn't really provide any information other than the guy's film history. Note that this was previously marked for speedy deletion via A7 by User:RichardColgate yesterday. Hersfold (talk/work) 23:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I tagged this for notability and no-references early on, and the article didn't get any better. POV, smells vanity-ish, not notable. Realkyhick 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rayguns

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

No albums or singles mentioned. Couldn't seem to find any third party sources. Seems to fail WP:BAND. -WarthogDemon 22:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Virtually no trace on Google. --Groggy Dice T | C 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom seems to fail WP:Band Harlowraman 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard time movement

Standard time movement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Doesn't seem to be a notable group at all. Google doesn't find any relevant hit and their website's homepage got 1,694 hits since 1995. -- lucasbfr talk 22:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as A7 (non-notable group). And make that 1695 hits. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, 1696, but I could've sworn I heard something about this group on CNN a while ago. But, since I'm no expert and could've easily been dreaming, no notability.Ravenmasterq 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. per Ten Pound Hammer. James Luftan contribs 23:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Policy-based arguments are not addressed. --Coredesat 03:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carrickmakeegan Tragedy

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

No sources, tagged as such since last November. There may exist sources (for example local papers, though I'm in no position to find them), but unless we actually know of one, it's unverifiable. Huon 22:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NN. Only one source on the internet mentions this accident ([4]), although that is hardly surprising given how long ago it happened. But even if one tried very hard to track down the issue of the local newspaper that covered the story in 1942, it would still be patently not notable - six kids killed in a capsized boat on a canal, accidents like this unfortunately happen every day. --Targeman 02:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep ([5]), satisfies me as a secondary source for the names of those killed and as a primary source that a memorial exists and hence we are not being hoaxed. Having been there myself, I know the area to have growing tourist appeal. If I, as a tourist, saw that memorial then I, being who I am, would want to find out more. I am sure Jimbo Wales would want Wikipedia to be the first place where I looked. Also the article linked out from the Ballinamore article and at the very, very least should be merged there. I personally think a separate Wikipage provides a more user friendly approach. Also, this article should not be deleted for WP:NN on procedural grounds. It has never been tagged {nn}} - had it been so, then the (possibly) tens of people who, like myself, read the article (and hence were provided with the encyclopedia service that Wiki is claiming to provide) might have had the opportunity to comment. I only know about this AfD because I flagged the article while making a WP:POINT. Aatomic1 13:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not questioning the authenticity of the incident, just its notability. Many countries follow the tradition of erecting small memorials at accident sites, especially car crashes. The time it takes me to finish typing this comment, several more random people will have died tragically and several more roadside chapels will have been built. All of them cannot be included on Wikipedia. And do I understand you correctly that an accident memorial constitutes some sort of tourist attraction? If you have a thing for graves and corpses, try St. Michan's Church in Dublin :-), but I frankly doubt an old accident site is likely to draw visitors ;-) --Targeman 14:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No; you do not understand me correctly. Aatomic1 15:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - Local incident with no repercussions outside the local area. No historic notability Corpx 03:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of golf courses

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of golf courses Articles for deletion/List of golf courses (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/List of golf courses in North Dakota
List of golf courses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The list is a magnet for all sorts of golf courses, and it does not have criteria for what qualifies as a notable course. The list is long, unwieldy, unmanaged and inconsistent. Its usefulness is unclear, and in my opinion a better list of notable courses is available via Category:Golf clubs and courses. Its previous discussion for deletion ended in a decision to keep, but in my opinion the arguments to keep were not compelling. PKT 22:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Adds nothing to what Category:Golf clubs and courses by country already has. Spellcast 22:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Spellcast. Most of the courses listed don't have articles, and so probably aren't notable. The lack of referencing makes it hard to check. Just make sure all the ones with articles are categorized properly, and kill the list. Hersfold (talk/work) 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - article adds nothing the category doesn't already provide. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is the type of list that every single golf course can be put there which would make extremely listcruft and unmaintainable. Categories per countries/provinces/states/territories should be enough.--JForget 00:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be difficult to maintain. I imagine that this type of information is collected on other websites, in addition to the category cited by nom; this should be redirected to Category:Golf clubs and courses, per PKT Mandsford 00:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Whack it with a crooked stick per nom et al. --Targeman 02:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information. The list is also difficult to maintain. Useight 04:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIR - Not a directory (of golf courses). This is borderline yellow pages level advertisement. Corpx 03:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article does add to the category, by showing the city in which each golf course is located. The opening sentence clearly says "notable golf courses"; and we surely do have criteria for what is notable. So, if any of the red-linked golf courses are not notable, they can be removed; but the article does not need to be deleted. This is not a directory; a directory would give addresses and phone numbers of the golf courses, and would list them all, not just the notable ones. Nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information, Golf course is an encyclopedic article and the criteria for inclusion in this list is very clear. Finally, a hundred or so editors have been maintaining this list for the last two years, and I see no reason why they wouldn't continue to do so; the WP:CONSENSUS of these editors ought not be overruled by a five-day "discussion" involving less than a dozen or so. DHowell 05:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment. With all due respect, if "a hundred or so editors have been maintaining this list for the last two years" I would expect it to have a much higher level of quality. I also don't see those folks voting here yet, although the discussion is still open. PKT 15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per DHowell, this does the work of dozens of categories, better. Navigating a bunch of single-entry categories like Golf courses in China, France, India, Jamaica would be awful. Remove red links and courses without articles, that will make it easier to maintain by simply reverting. Alternatively we could let this one go and start again with a clean one from the ground up (although we'd probably be be accused of disruption for doing that) Kappa 10:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Holy crap, per JForget, this will never be a manageable list to maintain. No hope in improving this article, unless one can source EVERY single golf course on this planet. And Mars too. -- Wikipedical 01:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drunken chess boxing

Drunken chess boxing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a alcohol-fuelled version of the silly strange, but real, chess boxing. However, the external links are cut-and-pasted from the chess-boxing article, and do not support the existence of the drunken variation. "Drunken chess boxing" brings up a grand total of ZERO Google hits, so this is either a hoax or something made up one day. Seems to me that it should really be a speedy, but there doesn't seem to be a category that fits. Iain99 21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Oli Filth 22:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete – Why wasn’t this “Speedy Deleted” Shoessss |  Chat  22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a real sport. Basically the same rules as chessboxing with the drinking twist. We will be uploading footage of the match to Youtube to link on here. Please do not delete this page. This is the sport of the future. Ansasource 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete for patent nonsense, hoax, something made up, the list goes on and on. If Google ain't heard of it, we don't need it. Hersfold (talk/work) 22:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for some many reasons already mentioned. I think...patent nonsense fits the best.Ravenmasterq 22:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, I don't understand why this wasn't. Mkdwtalk 00:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Why didn't I speedy? Because no criterion really fits - A7 only applies to non-notable people, groups, companies and web content, not games, and I think this is probably a good faith article by someone who genuinely didn't understand why the game he invented with a couple of his mates shouldn't be on Wikipedia, so G3 doesn't apply. G1 specifically excludes things like this, so here we are. However, I think a case could now be made for a speedy closure under WP:SNOW. Iain99 00:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into chess boxing. Gosh, it's just like the difference between Rugby league and rugby association. Mandsford 00:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons outlined above. If this is not a hoax, a one-sentence addition to Chess boxing would probably suffice. --Yamla 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:SNOW - hoax, or at least non-notable, original research, unsourced, unverified, etc. Melsaran 20:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adiramled

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

Article itself recites that there are no reliable sources showing this person's notability, or even existence. Fails WP:V. NawlinWiki 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete,, fails WP:V and WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep – At this point, I am not sure. The editor, or editor(s) who take the time to rewrite this piece, may be able to make a “Feature Article”. However, the research necessary to accomplish this task seems taunting Shoessss |  Chat  22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: No sources! It could be a hoax, or something similar, and we can't reliably confirm any of this is true.Ravenmasterq 23:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What do you mean by "reliably confirm"? Please explain. Do you mean that to reliably confirm something you'd have to travel (physically!!) to a research destination to find the source material? Or do you mean that Google will work fine? I'm just wondering on what system you base your judgment. Thanks.
  • Delete as unsourced and unverifiable. Notability is another concern even if we could confirm the article's content. --Huon 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment– Just “GOOGLE” and you can make a case either way. However, I believe there is enough information to keep. However, I am an in_clusionist. Shoessss |  Chat  00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Could you tell us what sources there are for the information we have? The article itself admits that there are few if any, and it doesn't give any. --Huon 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The sources appear to be named in the article. You should read it and see for yourself. If you look you'll see that just before or just following each quote the source is named. Are you making the statement that the named source(s) isn't/aren't "reliable"? I'm confused, because what you actually wrote is: "it doesn't give any", when, in fact, the "journal" is named and cited throughout. Please explain.
  • Comment The Journal mentioned in the article was published by the article's subject, and apparently major parts were written by him, too. That's hardly a reliable source as mentioned in WP:RS. See also WP:V#Sources. Furthermore, the Journal may be cited, but it's not a source for the article's content except the citations. An example: Bryant’s known writings span the years 1900 through 1916, but very few appear to be widely available. Even within occult circles Bryant’s name is largely unknown. - Says who? This line alone, if true, also raises notability concerns. --Huon 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that this article doesn't meet with the requirements of "Sources" found at WP:V#Sources, but, on the other hand, it also can't be considered a "questionable source" as defined at WP:V#Sources. As for WP:RS, the article itself cliams that it is a "guideline, not a policy". The present article may be an interesting case. What do you propose for instances where the subject of an article has never been covered by a third-party, yet the source material is available and noted? If you're philosophy were followed to the letter, nothing NEW would ever see the press. Or am I not following you?
  • Comment Due to Wikipedia's everybody-can-edit nature, we have other standards than, say, a peer-reviewed academic journal or a newspaper. Something new sees Wikipedia only after it saw those. According to WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, no article should be based on self-published sources, as this one is. Per WP:N, something which has not been covered by a third party isn't notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. That's why articles on such topics tend to get deleted. Admittedly, WP:N too is a guideline, not a policy, but I fail to see why we should make an exception here. --Huon 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the above statement by Huon regarding not making an exception here, and, following his lead, this means that...sheesh...this means there's a TON of material that needs to be deleted from Wikipedia. I better get started.
  • Delete per "very little, if anything, has been published regarding his life and works", with not prejudice against recreation when/if such sources are ever found spazure (contribs) 09:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonny and Carly Corinthos

Sonny and Carly Corinthos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There are articles about both Sonny and Carly. An article about them as a couple is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. DLandTALK 21:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. My current opinion is delete, as there is nothing here but storyline, and no references affirming notability. However I'll also say that I am prepared to be proven wrong. I have seen Flyer22 work miracles before on articles that were in the middle of an AfD, so I stand ready to change my opinion based on a potential rewrite.  :) --Elonka 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:PLOT. Otto4711 00:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 00:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of tyrants

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of tyrants Articles for deletion/List of tyrants (second nomination)
List of tyrants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was previously nominated for deletion more than two years ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tyrants, and the debate came to a no-consensus close. Many of those in favor of deletion said it was inherently biased, while those in favor of keeping suggested it had problems but that it could be reformed. As you can see, nothing has happenened. The list might actually have grown worse.

I view this list as violating several Wikipedia policies. First and most important, this article does not comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. These people are just being labelled tyrants, with no background, no information on who called/calls them that, no information on opposing views, nothing of the sort whatsoever. Just a list of people the various authors consider to be tyrants. This brings us to the second policy that is being violated, Wikipedia:no original research. These entries don't seem to have been added based on any reliable, published information - the opinions and views of the various editors shaped this list, which is not acceptable. An article's content should not depend on the opinions of who has been editing it. Style, yes. Format, yes. Wording, yes. But if the basic content of the article were to change completely because a different set of people happened to have edited it over two years, if we were to see an entirely new list of modern tyrants if sixty people out of special:random/user had been the contributors instead of the people in the history section, then that's an excellent indicator the article is original research.

Note that I have no objections to List of ancient Greek tyrants - these people have been identified as such by reliable sources. Not the case with the List of tyrants#Modern section. Picaroon (t) 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • It just occurred to me that there might be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons implications with the living people on the list, seeing as tyrant is a negative label and there are no sources for it. I haven't thought this over much, but it could be an issue too. Picaroon (t) 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Tyrant is a very weasly word and there are huge problems with defining inclusion (or even defining the word tyrant) . The POV and BLP problems are simply too big. I agree that List of ancient Greek tyrants is fine though. Pax:Vobiscum 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Tyrant is an inherently pejorative term (at least in the modern sense), and as such this list could never be NPOV. Iain99 22:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Tyrant is indeed a weaselly (sp?) word, will never be verified. Article definitely has problems with POV and BLP. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons voiced by User:Picaroon and User:TenPoundHammer. -WarthogDemon 22:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see the POV argument, honestly. I think that, with the exception of some skinheads, there is a universal belief that Hitler was a tyrant. We would all be laughing if this were entitled "List of alleged tyrants". If there is a problem, it may be that tyrant is a stronger word than, say, autocrat or dictator; but absolute executive power has been a rarity in modern history, and most of that characteristic of these notable persons is something that can easily be sourced. Indeed, some descriptive footnotes would probably strengthen this article beyond the blue links. Mandsford 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    Yes we would (all be laughing), as "alleged" is a word to avoid. But that sort of solution will be delving right back into original research. Making a list of all people who have ever "held absolute executive power" and labeling them tyrants is original research. Could you please address the original research issue as well as the neutrality issue? I'm pretty sure it would not be possible to satisfy both concerns and come out with a remotely viable article, but I'm open to a proposal. Picaroon (t) 00:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, perhaps that may be the real reason we might all be laughing... when I see use of a Wikipedia word to avoid, I find that to be high comedy and burst into a loud guffaw. Okay, regarding original research, I can see that aspect of it. However, I also think that it could easily be sourced ("descriptive footnotes" would be those type that list a source but also an additional sentence.... I'm not sure what those are actually called, but the type that go [1] Shirer, "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"; Hitler's control as Chancellor was described as "tyranny", p399 or something on that order. Tyrants tend to have more biographies written about them then nice guys; hence Hitler gets more books then, say, Willy Brandt. Mandsford 02:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment An appeal to the Third Reich doesn't really help establish how this list can be neutral. Yes, we can all agree that Hitler was a tyrant, but how about Pinocet? He still has a fairly large fan club in Chile (and the British Conservative party for that matter). Or Castro? Franco? Mubarak? Musharraf? Putin? Unless, as you seem to suggest, we should just include everyone who has ever been called a tyrant, but in that case it would get rather long and silly... I'm fairly sure that I could find some sources which refer to Bush and Blair as tyrants... Iain99 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Response You raise a good point. I think the American press tends to still look at Mubarak, Musharraf and Putin as being okay; the portrayal of Castro is split between people who mention stadium trials or low illiteracy rate; Franco and Pinochet seem to have earned their place in Hell, but as you can accurately guess, that's my opinion. I can also see where this could be added to too easily. Who among us has not, at one time, included on our personal "List of Tyrants" the entry "My Dad". I still believe it could be documented. The Shirer book was an example... I think in the copy that I have, page 399 had a cigarette advertisement. Mandsford 12:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per pure WP:OR. There is absolutely no way this kind of list could ever be anything but a PoV dump. It's like making a List of stupid politicians, there isn't the slightest chance of any kind of consensus ever arising here; a guaranteed trollfest and edit battlefield, AfD magnet, surefire ArbCom customer, a waste of everybody's time, another unwanted stain on Wikipedia's reputation, I could go on and on. --Targeman 03:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete but note "Tyrant" is the Anglicization of the Greek name of these rulers in ancient time, so usage in regards to rulers of ancient Greek places (and by extension, those in Sicily or Magna Graecia) is quite OK. Carlossuarez46 19:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B'nai Avraham Synagogue

B'nai Avraham Synagogue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable synagogue, makes no assertion of notability either... so really I guess it qualifies for speedy deletion, but the article has been around long enough that I wouldn't go there. DLandTALK 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Just one of probably hundreds of synagogues in NYC. It apparently has a cool-looking mikvah, but besides that, nothing out of the very ordinary. --Targeman 03:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 03:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Even the synagogue's own site doesn't claim they're particularly notable. Compare Congregation Emanu-El of New York, which is clearly notable. --John Nagle 05:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the major yuppie orthodox synagogue in Brooklyn. I'll try to source. DGG (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I note that this was originally PRODded on 6 August and nobody has provided any evidence of notability since. -- ChrisO 11:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not a directory of synagogues, churches, or mosques. Catchpole 16:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spark (University of Reading newspaper)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Spark (University of Reading newspaper) Articles for deletion/Spark (University of Reading newspaper) (second nomination)
Spark (University of Reading newspaper) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete as this is a non-notable students newspaper, only relevant to those at the university. There has been little improvement since last nomination, and I still fail to see how this article could ever be notable TheIslander 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unsourced, unreferenced, and lacks any notability. TerriersFan 22:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per TheIslander and TerriersFan. Doesn't seem very notable. Eggy49er 01:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete While I think university newspapers are notable, I could find nothing about this one Corpx 03:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It has improved since last time - the list of editors has been updated (showing some of the ex-editors humble beginnings in the publishing industry) and, as noted before, it is notable because it is an independent printed news sources in a unique environment of learning. Oberon2001 21:05, 9 August 2007 (BST)
  • Comment - Notability comes from reliable secondary sources attesting to the notability of the subject of the page - this article has none - clear failure to meet WP:V. TerriersFan 21:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Also, quick question: how is the University of Reading any more a "unique environment of learning" than any other university in the UK, or indeed the world? TheIslander 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: does not meet the primary notability criterion of multiple, non-trivial sources independent of the subject. There's nothing in the article even worth merging into Reading University Students' Union - although a properly referenced paragraph there would be appropriate and adequate coverage. — mholland (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per arguments below, at present we don't have sources to confirm that he is notable by WP:BIO or WP:PROF. As he is relatively young, notability may be established in the future. MastCell Talk 20:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgiy Starostin

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

Article is about a 31-year-old Russian linguistics professor who teaches and researches in Moscow. He is also a prolific Internet music critic. However, I have my doubts as to whether there are multiple, non-trivial, reliable published sources about him other than his own work - other reliable sources about him would be preferable. Unsure if he meets WP:PROF. His music website probably isn't a reliable source. His father seems to be notable, however. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Tentative delete. Searching the English version of the university site [6] came up with zero hits for this particular Starostin. 'G Starostin' gives 41 Google hits, many of which appear to relate to other people, and nearly all the Google Scholar hits seem to refer to physics; the linguistics papers appear to have few or no citations. There seems no evidence, therefore, that he meets WP:PROF at this time. A self-published music review site does not appear to convey notability, unless it's been discussed in multiple non-trivial sources, for which I can find no evidence. Willing to change my mind if an expert and/or Russian speaker comes up with more evidence. Espresso Addict 02:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only online Russian source where Georgiy is mentioned is this: [7] - it's a dead link but you can still read the short sample in Google, it says "Ими сейчас занимается мой сын, Георгий Старостин. Он пошел по моим стопам, уже защитил кандидатскую, довольно успешно занимался енисейскими и дравидийскими", which in my free translation (disclaimer: my Russian sucks) means "they are being currently taking care of by my son, Georgiy Starostin. He followed my footsteps and his candidacy has fulfilled the requirements, and now he's successfully working on Yenisey and Dravidian (languages)". So the only thing we have is a dad bragging about his son who more than likely owes him his job. As for the music blog, I can't find a trace. Any input from Russian speakers would be welcome, but I think it's pretty clear this guy's only claim to fame is his father. --Targeman 03:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Starostin is used as a source in 3 wikipedia articles on linguistics (Borean languages, Elamo-Dravidian languages and Nostratic languages). I know this is not a policy-based grounds to keep the article, but it suggests that people who know the field consider him important, and I don't know how to find out why. JulesH 09:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I also note that he co-edited the journal Mother Tongue for a year. This also seems to be evidence of notability to me. JulesH 09:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
*Actually, only the Elamo-Dravidian languages and Mother Tongue references concern Georgiy Starostin, the other ones are about his father, Sergei Starostin. Georgiy is one of hundreds of linguists who have published theories on the Elamite language, and co-editing a scientific review for a year is really no big deal. Without more substantive sources, I cannot consider him notable enough. This AfD really need a Russian :-) --Targeman 09:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Borean languages says "Georgiy Starostin expresses the reservation that the name would imply a prejudgement that the Eurasian macrofamilies Nostratic, Dené-Caucasian, Afroasiatic and Austric are more closely related to each other than to the African families Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo." Nostratic languages states "Georgiy Starostin (2002) arrives at a tripartite overall grouping (that is, he considers Afro-Asiatic, Nostratic and Elamite to be roughly equidistant and more closely related to each other than to anything else". Both of these seam to refer to the subject of this AFD to me. JulesH 10:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I've really no idea how I could have misread those articles. I should stop editing at 3 a.m. :-) --Targeman 14:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete in the absences of good sources for this field, I hazard the guess that he probably will be notable one day,but not yet. We clearly do need an article on his father, though. DGG (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per points by JulesH. Digwuren 10:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete in the absence of any reliable sources. The claims made may satisfy WP:BIO but there is no obvious source confirming them. Nuttah68 07:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Operation Treadstone. The content is available in the page history for merging as indicated; the article itself has been redirected. MastCell Talk 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicky Parsons

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

There is not enough information in existence on this character to warrant its own article. All of the information on the character barely fills a single paragraph, and would better be integrated into an article on all of the characters, or the main Jason Bourne page. ColdFusion650 20:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. If Bourne series characters are going to be Wikified, they should start in an article together, then possibly break more important characters into their own articles. Nicky Parsons should rank behind Marie St. Jacques or Alex Conklin, surely. PKT 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Several significant Bourne characters are mentioned in Operation Treadstone PKT 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and PKT - if anything, a single article for all major characters is sufficient. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per ColdFusion's suggestion. --MarsRover 03:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to Operation Treadstone, or some other article on characters in the Bourne series. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the article can be expanded into a suitable length. I have begun to do so and will continue. ---Helmandsare 04:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The additional headings make it seem like it is longer, but I can't find much new information. It went from one big paragraph to three smaller ones. ColdFusion650 13:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 21:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kye

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

Article, which has existed since late 2005, is about a possibly non-notable computer game. A search for the game along with the name of the developer gets under 100 google hits. I wrote to the author of this game around ten years ago, actually, as I enjoyed it at the time, and received a response through the post, but I don't think it's notable. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: the article has no references but it has some external links which could be used for as them, however, It requires a complete rewrite - Pheonix 20:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep - Every once in a while something comes along that's notable, but proves a sourcing nightmare. This seems to be one such article, and while I vote weak keep it would need MASSIVE cleanup (perhaps a rewrite almost) to stay. -WarthogDemon 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I understand it, a subject is only notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial reliable published sources. Find me some professional sources on this if you can...-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources are found to attest notability Corpx 03:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think several reviews by independent reviewers are enough ([8], [9]). Also, apparently there's still versions of it being developed and played (e.g. [10]), which adds more notability than if it was just yet another Boulderdash clone from 1992. So enough notability to have an article in my book. --Allefant 11:06, 10

August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is also tagged as a speedy delete because it has been previously listed for AfD and was deleted there. JodyB yak, yak, yak 21:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drake & Josh in New York!

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Drake & Josh in New York!
Drake & Josh in New York! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article about "possible upcoming movie" with absolutely no sources and very little context. Realkyhick 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No Sources and little informataion of use.Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a crystal ball.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per above. 22 non-wiki ghits, none of which give more than crystal ball stuff. --Fabrictramp 20:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources. ColdFusion650 20:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per crystal ball and lack of any sources. --Nehrams2020 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: User:ColdFusion650 has now tagged this for speedy deletion as a re-creation of Drake & Josh In New York! (note the capitalization difference), which was deleted via AfD and salted. Under the circumstances, I now move for salting for the current article as well. Realkyhick 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 19:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan B. Lerner

Jonathan B. Lerner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, apparently autobiographical article. Prod tags have been removed by author (User:Jonlerne). One citation has been provided, to an answers.com page that mirrors Wikipedia's Mission Hills, Kansas article [11] which mentioned Lerner without any external sources, but currently does not. Google searches for Jonathon B. Lerner, Jonathon Lerner and Jonathan Bowles Lerner did not find mention of anyone that seemed to be this person that could be considered to show notability. Content of article is unencyclopedic, reading more like a family holiday missive than an encyclopedia article. Recommend deletion. SiobhanHansa 19:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Not Notable Enough for Wikipedia Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 20:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A7. No notability asserted at all. I couldn't find any sources mentioning this person. It also reads like an ad. Spellcast 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe there is an assertion of importance in the performance history (the "esteemed" Shawnee Mission East High School roles notwithstanding). In particular he asserts performances with The Kansas City Symphony. However, while this is an assertion of notability, I do not believe it is sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia (it is also unsourced). -- SiobhanHansa 20:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A7. No notability. -- Kleinzach 22:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial Alliance

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

Gaming community with 27 members. No claim of notability in article. COI issues. Contested prod Fabrictramp 19:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Totally non-notable group. Realkyhick 19:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete No assertion of notabiblity. -Icewedge 20:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete There's heaps of gaming clans out there. No reason as to why this one is more special. Spellcast 20:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold Case (Music)

Cold Case (Music) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This incomplete fancruft. LizzieHarrison 19:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. It took me a while to even figure out what it was. Indiscriminate list, even if it does have some good music on it. Realkyhick 19:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete What's this article even about? Spellcast 20:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A1, no context to tell us what this indiscriminate list even is. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. TenPoundHammer's argument stands, and it'd be indiscriminate trivia even if there were context.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is a list of music that has been featured on the TV show Cold Case and seems to have split off from Cold_Case#Music. (Hint: Wikipedia has a 'What links here' feature). The list is obviously incomplete but structured by seasons and (wikilinked) episodes, so hardly indiscriminate. If kept it should rather be renamed e.g. Music featured on Cold Case or List of ..--Tikiwont 13:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 user requested deletion. - auburnpilot talk 00:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian Dear

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

Non-notable self-published book, published through one of those printed-on-demand retailer sites. A grand total of four relevant Google hits for "Guardian Dear" Grinstead; three from the seller, one Blogspot page. No evidence of passing WP:BK and WP:V with not a single independent source cited or found. Probably WP:COI issues as well, as it reads as self-promotion. Prod removed without comment or improvement. ~Matticus TC 19:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Spam, spam, spam, spam .... Realkyhick 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Had a look. It has no references and I've never hears of it.
  • I tried to delete it. I'm the creator... don't know how to delete it. Sorry for the offense. bcw
  • By the way, Realkyhick, I didn't intend to "spam"... I was just trying to help this new author with a very inspirational and Christian novel. New to this site. bcw
  • Speedy delete I've tagged it for a G7. Spellcast 21:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Please defer merge related comments to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Svidersky

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Anna is not particularly notable other than by her death, which caused a short term media spike, but we focus too much on recentism as it is. Note that we lack articles on e.g. the murder or the murderer itself. This article is a Coatrack article in that it focuses mostly on the murder, and 'hangs' this on an article purporting to be about Anna (and also on her myspace account, for some reason). All in all, not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC) (if kept, rename per the below; the article isn't really about her, but about the murder and the so-called sickness which gets a whopping two google hits). >Radiant< 07:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Earlier debate resulted in no consensus here.
  • Delete - I was involved with this article as a GA reviewer back in Sept 2006 and I had concerns then about the line the article was straddling between being a biography/memorial and an article covering the internet phenomenon/"My space event" after her death. It was my opinion then and still now that the article is crossing the memorial line. When the last AfD established that the only notability of this article was the unique aftermath of her death then I felt the article's primary focus should be this aftermath with reliable sources commenting on the factors and significances of the event. I was disappointed that the article invested so much focus on details like her donating her hair for charity or her mother's quote about her killer. After more research I found that there simply was not that much coverage from reliable third party sources on the relevance and notability of the internet phenomenon and in a little more then a year times the event has already started to fade from significance. I think the event does merits a paragraph worth of information in the Myspace article and that is about it. It certainly doesn't pass the bar for a biography and there are simply not enough sources or information for an article about the internet phenomenon by itself.AgneCheese/Wine 19:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Since writing this you have merged parts of the article into Mourning sickness and in a post below have advocated "Delete and redirect", which isn't actually an option. For GFDL reasons, it needs to be "Merge and redirect". Tyrenius 19:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This was discussed at length at the previous AfD that resulted in a Keep, as well as on the Talk page. The notable element in the article is the so-called (and reliably sourced) 'mourning sickness' phenomenon, where thousands of strangers around the world went into mourning over someone they didn't know, simply because of the communication power of the Internet. We are not aware of any comparable event before or since, and it is properly sourced. So we have both notablity and reliable sourcing, all that's needed for a WP article. Crum375 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I note, however, that we do not have an article on mourning after sickness, and neither does it google. Perhaps this is not such a notable or verifiable phenomenon after all? >Radiant< 07:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Er, I think we need to look up "mourning sickness".[12] Tyrenius 07:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay, so how about we rename this article to Mourning sickness and focus on that? >Radiant< 09:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
          • That would be a valid, but entirely different article. This one is about a particular incident which has other significance also, as in the role of the internet and youth culture, which are not intrinsic to "mourning sickness" per se. You might like to discuss the name on the article talk page. Tyrenius 09:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Maybe if we changed the title to "Anna Svidersky murder" or "mourning after sickness." There seems to be a bit of notability here, over and above the day-to-day murder. It's a close call, I'll admit. Realkyhick 20:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Weak keep per Crum375 -- there aren't that many reliable sources, but there are some. Agne27's arguments are also pretty convincing, so I'm not fully swayed to keep. Does seem to surpass the "notable for one thing" bar, if barely. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mourning sickness, which is what this page is really about. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 10:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. I'd support a move to "Anna Svidersky murder" or similar - she's not notable, only her death/murder and the surrounding hype are because we do have some reliable sources. I can't think of anywhere that would be appropriate for a merge, and meta:wiki is not paper, so I see no pressing need to delete, but generally biographies of persons notable only for one event are to be avoided, so I think the move is imperative (see Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the AFD that suggested a move from Madeleine McCann, a non-notable child in herself, but the subject of a notable disappearance. Still, Wikipedia is not news either, so we should avoid the hype of missing white woman syndrome in these types of articles related to murders, disappearances and similar.)-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not the fact that she was murdered that is notable, but the fact that that became an internet phenomenon generating 3,000,000 hits to date on one youtube video alone and total of 7,000,000 hits on related videos according to one figure.[13] This phenomenon was reported internationally at the time, specifically in The Guardian (UK),[14], The Sydney Morning Herald,[15] and the New York Times.[16] Other coverage included local press and the Department of Social and Policy Sciences, University of Bath, England.[17] In April this year Svidersky was referred to in a speech by Washington Governor Gregoire.[18] In July the murder was cited with reference to another murder case by The Columbian.[19] Thus the incident has achieved notability which is always linked to the name of Anna Svidersky, bestowing notability on her in the process as the victim. The article which covers all this takes the principle of least surprise by simply using her name as the title. It is what anyone wishing to read about the subject would most obviously search for. There seems to be some, to my mind, rigid thinking to quibble with this, and likewise with the claim that the rest of her life wasn't notable. That is of course true, but again by association and media coverage, those aspects of her life are now in the public domain. The article was written per NPOV and therefore follows sources. If the sources have seen fit to mention aspects of her background it would be POV editing to exclude these on the grounds that they are "sentimental". That is an irrelevant consideration and there is no wiki guideline that says otherwise. The same applies to the accusation that this is a memorial page. It is not. It is an article written as any other, applying Wikipedia policies to do so. If this takes on any semblance of a memorial page, then that is an accidental and inevitable byproduct, when an article is written which concerns a dead person. The editing policy is simply to provide relevant information that a reader is likely to require. As the origin of the phenomenon and subsequent media coverage is her myspace page, it would be perverse if this were not in the article, thus forcing the reader to access it directly to gain an idea of what it contained. Wikipedia articles should be self-contained and cover aspects of the subject to inform the reader. Tyrenius 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep When an article is notable and verifiable and not original research and written with reliable sources and someone still invokes "unencyclopedic" as the reason to delete, how do we possibly dispel that bogeyman other than to say, this is encyclopedic. If it's too much of a memorial, if it needs a rename then thrash it out on the talk page. But the level of sourcing makes it abundantly clear that this article is valid per our standards. Don't buy the rationale that it's about "mourning sickness"? Well, sorry, the sources in the article already made the call. And so what the nomination really comes down to is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --JayHenry 01:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Merge I have to agree with Agne27, the article reads as a memorial to a person who was otherwise not notable. I disagree that the memorial tone is an inevitable byproduct. Facts like her donating her hair and giving money to a particular charity are not really relevant from an encyclopedic point of view The response to the death, is and should be noted either by renaming the article (and stripping out the parts that make the article a memorial), or merging information about the "mourning sickness" to an article dealing with internet phenomena. ---- The Bethling(Talk) 01:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Your argument is for "Move" or "Merge", not "Delete". Tyrenius 00:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is well referenced. Change the name to "Murder of ..." if there is consensus on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I grieve for the loss to the world of this young person, slain by a psycho a week before her 18th birthday. Had she lived another 60 years or so , who knows what good she might have done? But I cannot find that the article is more than a memorial, and per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a memorial. God bless her and grant her eternal peace. Edison 02:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep shows a unique modern response to grieving in the information age. Jmm6f488 01:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Almost every murder in a country with relatively low crime rate will receive lots of attention, but that does not mean it should be mentioned here. There is no historic notability in this case Corpx 03:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In 2005, there were 16,692 murders in the US.[20] How many of those received international media coverage,and of those that did, how many not just for the murder itself, but for also creating an unprecedented worldwide phenomenon? Tyrenius 02:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. Notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and that clearly exists here. Even though it appears that the only reason she is notable is because of the internet response to her death, she is nonetheless notable. In addition, the WP:BIO guideline gives another criterion for notablity: "The person has demonstrable wide name recognition"; and this is the case with Anna. DHowell 04:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (i) This article is about the public reaction to the murder, not the victim of the murder. (iii) The phenomenon of 'mourning sickness' (which is only another way of describing mass grief) may be a fit subject for a article, but until it is created, this page cannot and should not serve as a substitute.--Greatest hits 05:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Mourning sickness now exists with parts of the article copied to it. Presumably you would advocate "Merge and redirect"? Tyrenius 19:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to the closing admin It appears that even the majority of "Keep sentiments" have noted that it is the reaction to Anna's death that is notable and not the individual herself or even her murder. It appears then that the purpose of this article is not to serve as a biography or a detailed account of her murder but rather to try and act as a encyclopedic entry on the phenomenon that happened following her death. To better serve that angle and respect the content that the "Keep" voters wish to retain I have started the Mourning sickness article and include a section about Anna Svidersky. While it is certainly a work in progress, I believe this article can be more sharply focus on the encyclopedic content and notability of the event without being overburden with the trivial details about cutting her hair and donating to charity and overall memorial language that the Anna Svidersky article has. I feel the best approach then is to Delete with redirect and have Anna Svidersky point to the subsection within the Mourning Sickness article about the reaction to her death. As the above sentiments (both Keep and Delete) note, she is not notable and therefore we do not need a complete biography article on her.AgneCheese/Wine 08:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a good possibility, or a shortened Anna article that focuses more on the post-death phenomenon, and largely gets rid of the part about donated hair and such. Plenty of reliable sources here, too. I'm good with it either way. The new article looks good so far. Realkyhick 08:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback! I was thinking about the shorten Anna article when I was working on Mourning sickness but it looks to me like if you removed all the relevant and encyclopedic content from the article, there really is not much left. The actual crime of her murder doesn't distinguish it from any other unfortunate death. Even as the first AfD concluded, it really is all about the reaction and aftermath. I do think we can include all the essential and important details in the Anna Svidersky section of Mourning Sickness and I'd like to invite the participants here to the Talk:Mourning sickness page to hammer out the details of the sections. I think the main consideration left for this AfD will be if the bare bones biography and details or Anna's death (apart from the reaction) is notable enough to merit its own separate and distinct article apart from the Mourning sickness detailing the reaction to her death. That considerations leads into where the "Anna Svidersky" redirect would better serve. I think it would be of most use to the reader as a redirect to subsection of Mourning Sickness. AgneCheese/Wine 09:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As Tyrenius noted above, this article is about more than just 'mourning sickness'. It is about a unique event in history, never seen before or after, where a specific young individual died and evoked widespread emotions of grief, by thousands of other young people, worldwide, who had not known that person before. Yes, it has been tied to the concept of 'mourning sickness' as an explanation, but that does not make it one of many, as there are none others to compare to. The only close example of the mass widespread grief cited by the press is Princess Diana, and that of course is different as the vast majority of the mourners there had heard of Diana before, so this case is even more unique. Given the the high name recognition of Anna on the Internet (26,600 g-hits), the incomparably high number of hits on the various you-tube, MySpace and other memorials (over 3,000,000), and the relevant supporting reliable sources on mainstream press, there is no reason not to have an article in her own name – this is what Wikipedia is about. Crum375 15:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of reasons why Wikipedia does not need a memorial article. The Mourning sickness article can aptly cover the phenomenon that was never seen before just as the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann covers the details of the Madeleine McCann event, the Murder of Sarah Payne covers the events and reaction to Sarah Payne's death, and the Soham murders covers those high profile murders. The most prudent reasons for not having separate articles on victims is that they do tend to become memorials as the Anna Svidersky article has become a case in point for. It's almost a natural course whenever you have individuals who are not notable themselves to warrant a biography to then "fill up space" with non-encyclopedic and trivial details that turn the article into a tribute rather than a biography. While the sentiment is nice, it doesn't benefit Wikipedia or the reader. If the notability is plainly tied into the reaction to her death as the first AfD and both the keep and delete sentiments in this AfD have clearly established then THAT is the sole content that should be kept. The subsection on the Mourning sickness article can aptly cover that reaction in a more encyclopedic tone then a memorial article ever would.AgneCheese/Wine 18:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • We all agree, I think, that WP does not need a memorial article. And this article is not a memorial. It is about a person who became very famous as a result of her death, because she was the only one in history to have caused mass grieving by thousands of strangers around the world based on the Internet communication technology. 26,600 g-hits tell you her name is well known – I suspect much more so than many people for whom we have bio articles. That she became famous as a result of her untimely death does not mean that we can't have an article describing her life. Her life and death, as well as the unique, unprecedented and since unequaled response of the Internet community to her death, are well documented by reliable mainstream sources. This fulfills all requirements for a WP article. Denying this would be to ignore well documented facts and our own inclusion rules. Crum375 22:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The "mourning sickness" effect is only one aspect of this. The effect of the internet, the nature of myspace and teen culture are equally important. Cumulatively they have given notability to the murder victim. What might normally be trivial has in this case gained significance through media coverage. To arbitrarily veto such information is what is not encyclopedic. In this case it is essential to the completeness of the article to include details of Svidersky's life published in the media and available online, as this was the information available to those who then participated in this global reaction. If the reader is to gain an insight into what prompted the reaction, then they need to know the information that was available to the "mourners". That information has been included; the reaction to the death has been stated; it should be pointed out that no editorial deduction has been made as to the precise connection between the two things. That is left up to the reader to decide. However, if certain biographical details are objected to in the article, that is a matter for editorial discussion, not a reason to delete the whole article. I find these "murder of..." titles somewhat pedantic and artificial, counter-intuitive, arrived at by wikilegalese and precipitating a contrived introduction as a result: Murder of Sarah Payne being a case in point. It is an unfortunate recent development in naming and should be discouraged. It is instructive to search google for "Sarah Payne" (68,300),[21] "Murder of Sarah Payne" (2,160),[22] or even "Sarah Payne" + "murder" (23,600).[23] The great majority of such murder articles are simply titled with the name of the victim (or the perpetrator), as in Kenneth Bigley. I would not have thought it needed pointing out that most murder victims are only notable because of their murder, and otherwise would have remained unknown. Tyrenius 00:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The background section of this article reads lie a memorial. Compare it to another person who became famous through his death, Matthew Sheppard. We don't see information about whether he volunteered at soup kitchens, or got detention one day in school. With the exception of the one quote from family, it's encyclopedic biographical information. Simply because a reliable source mentions something in an attempt to emotionally connect with readers doesn't mean that it belongs in an article. The fact that she's somewhat well known doesn't mean that she necessarily deserves an article of her own either. Jessica Lunsford was a very high profile murder victim, with over 500,000 g-hits, and yet because outside of her murder she isn't notable her entry is a redirect to her murderer, John Couey. As I said in my original comment, the reaction is the thing that's notable, and I really think that since there's now an article about "mourning sickness" that's really the place where it belongs. ---- The Bethling(Talk) 00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Bethling, I think you may be missing an important point by making the comparison to Matthew Sheppard, which relates to the uniqueness and notability of this article. In your Sheppard example, that person was brutally murdered, and that brutality alone caused an uproar. But the issue here is different – we have a person who was brutally murdered who was part of the online community via MySpace, and whose life details were supplied by her MySpace page and online media articles soon after her death. The mass grieving which then ensued via the various Internet channels occurred after these personal life details became available to the online community. The point here is that the 'grieving by strangers' effect was related to the information that they received online about the subject's life prior to her death, and thus that 'stranger' became more familiar to them. We don't know as Wikipedia editors how much impact the personal life details actually had on the grieving by the thousands of strangers worldwide, but we do know that it was made available to them by her MySpace page and the media, and a reasonable person could conclude that there was a causal relationship. In any case, we supply that well sourced information to allow the readers to reach their own conclusions. Excluding that information would be un-encyclopedic and would prevent them from seeing the full, well sourced picture, and quite possibly the main reason for the unprecedented mass grieving effect. Crum375 01:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't really see any evidence that this type of information being available is why her death struck a chord with so many people, rather than the fact that she was simply a young woman just shy of her eighteenth birthday struck down in a really tragic circumstance (which is how the page was first shown to me by a friend). The inference that release of the information about her and the reaction she received have a causal relationship is OR. ---- The Bethling(Talk) 20:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The reader is free to infer what they will. We should not imply something that is not in the sources, and, as far as I can see this has not been done. The Guardian certainly brings in background information available on the internet as a prominent feature:
Alex agrees with this idea of a phoney connection, likening the interest in Anna to the way people "grieve" over celebrities because they "think they know the person". But by visiting Anna's page, he says, "you could find out nearly everything about her". Indeed, reading Anna's page seems to show her life exactly as it was up to the moment she died ... it is still full of risque comments and goofy phrases. Instead of assurances from heartbroken family members that the victim was a sweet young girl who would "do anything for anyone", we find a portrait in which Anna boasts of being "legal in six days" and chooses as a theme song a coarse little number by the band Hollywood Undead. But being able to pore over the details of Anna's life is not without an element of creepiness. People who have never met Anna have posted tributes to her as emotional as those of Anna's closest friends.[24]
The newspaper does not make an explicit conclusion on this. The article follows the source, providing the information, but not making an explicit conclusion. Tyrenius 21:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:NOT a memorial has been cited in this discussion. The relevant policy passage reads:
Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.

I might mention that the current article is the work of wiki editors who have no connection with the subject. Any attempts to include personal tributes have been reverted. Tyrenius 00:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • That needs to be "Merge" then, in order to preserve GFDL, as parts of the article have been copied to Mourning sickness. Also presumably a redirect would be helpful. Tyrenius 06:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Anna Svidersky' gets 2.5 times more g-hits than 'Mourning Sickness', and the current Wikipedia Mourning sickness article is essentially built around 'Anna Svidersky'. That's not a logical or reasonable arrangement – clearly 'Anna Svidersky' is significantly more notable, plus this article is about much more than just the 'Mourning Sickness' itself, but about a specific notable case, where among other things, 'Mourning Sickness' was cited by the press. Crum375 02:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge while this is a sad and tragic story it touched chords and should be respected. I think the article should be kept as is. Modernist 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep looks notable and covered by major newspapers. No merge is necessary, WP is not paper.  Grue  17:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7) by user:JodyB. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lexi Belle

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

Not notable, no references, link spam, fails Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) PEAR (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Doesn't seem to meet the criteria in WP:PORNBIO. Spellcast 19:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. No references, no indication of notability, and likely that no reliable sources even exist.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for not asserting notability. So marked. Valrith 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 02:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of foreign Premier League players

List of foreign Premier League players (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I just don't see how this is enyclopedic. Yes its intersting and, if tided, could be a good little source of information, but it seems to me like the very definition of 'trivia'. WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information... --Pretty Green 18:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with modifications. I do think that the article is enyclopedic enough to remain an article, but only if it acts as a 'mirror' article to the list of English footballers not playing in England article. Therefore, I think that the article should be modified to only include current foreign players, otherwise, in just a few seasons, this article could be way too long (also, I for one would find it much more interesting if it was only current players). RedvBlue 05:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - a lot of countries have categories that do this sort of thing (e.g. Non-German footballers in Germany, and this does the job much better. ArtVandelay13 07:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Along the same lines as Non-Russian players in Russian Football Premier League 2007 (albeit not year specific), which was deleted yesterday. Number 57 10:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per ArtVandelay. This is an obvious way to subdivide Premier league players, and self-evidently does the job in a far superior way to a category. The list itself is informative in showing the distribution of countries which supply players. Kappa 16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm the creator of the list and so I won't vote, but I think you're misunderstanding this list (and the MLS one, and the La Liga one, and the Serie A one) and you're comparing it to other brainless lists improperly: I think that AT LEAST the 5 main European Leagues (La Liga, Serie A, Premier League, Bundesliga and Ligue 1) should/could have a similar list. Don't make another witch-hunt. I think Kappa has understood the whole thing properly. --necronudist 17:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I started one of these articles so I won't vote, as necronudist has, but I agree with ArtVandelay and Kappa's points. CAN 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Textbook example of trivial intersection. See WP:OCAT Corpx 03:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That's about categories, not lists; the "CAT" part should give you a clue. Anyway it says to "Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated" like "red haired" and "king", not like "Country of origin" and "country where they play". How many newspaper articles are there about red-haired kings? Kappa 05:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Where does it say on that page that it is only applicable to categories? I personally think lists should be held to a higher standard. As for the trivial intersection part, it says to "avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated". Being not from England and being a EPL player is something I'd consider as being "two traits that are unrelated" Corpx 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
        • These are 4 traits: country A, country B, sport=soccer, level=top. Country A and country B are related traits; top is a non-arbitrary cutoff point per WP:OVERCAT. And if it wasn't restricted by sport, it would kinda lose its focus. Kappa 06:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is a good reference page. м info 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's important to reference due to the issues/coverage of the amount of foreign players in England. Englishrose 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is verifiable, and notable. Articles such as this make lists such as these more and more relevant. Neier 23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't see how this is trivia. I strongly oppose cutting the list down to current players only. Punkmorten 08:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The very large number of foreign players in the Premier League is a reasonably controversial issue that comes up fairly frequently. If the list could be linked with that issue, the number of foreign players shown by season to demonstrate the increase in numbers over time and the list of players itself ordered by season, I would feel easier about this. As it stands, it is a list that does nothing for me. Put it in the context of concern over the number of foreign players in the Premier League, and you have an article imo --Malcolmxl5 09:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete potentially huge list of players; it might be theorically notable on its own, but it needs several modifications in order to actually make it a reasonable article. --Angelo 21:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Per consensus and nominator [25]. (Non-admin closure) —Travistalk 14:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith and The Girl

Keith and The Girl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

About some kind of online video recording described by its authors as "Keith and his girlfriend talk shit. Hmmmm." --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment if 'the girl'- the other presenter- Chemda Khalili is actually noteable then this might be noteable. If you scroll down this article to the list of guests they've had on the programme, there are quite a lot that have blue links to their own article.Merkinsmum 19:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The subject of this wiki page is a well-known podcast and the podcasters behind it. They have been covered in print (www.observer.com/2007/mr-and-mrs-shock-pod-queens) and radio media and are among the more well-known and followed podcasts. This wiki entry has been previously unsuccessfully challenged on notability and encyclopedic value. Though podcasting was once new to wiki...it is now more widely accepted and of notability and encyclopedic value (a simple search on "podcasting" will clarify it's validity). KATG, from their large internet presence, media attention (print and radio), and impact/voice in the podcasting community is of notability and value to include in wikipedia. The subject matter of this podcast is mature and comedic...so I can appreciate that their tag line ("Keith and his girlfriend talk shit.") may lead some to think that this wiki entry was a joke entry....it isn't...

    In my opinion, the AFD tagging of this article is without merit...and the tagger may have reacted too soon...in light of their "online video recording" comment.
"consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD"
and
"invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template"
instead of nominating the article for deletion? I had a quick look under the talk page but I couldn't find any reservations anyone had expressed about the article.
Also, would it be an idea to explain why you're nominating it? As the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion suggests under the Discussion section
"Always explain your reasoning"
Is there anything particular in the article that prompts you to put it up for deletion? 172.212.29.29 19:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • keep The nominator does not list any reasons for this article to be deleted. It does not meet any of the qualifications on the Reasons for Deletion page. This podcast is notable in the vast number of listeners, its popularity as frequent number one podcast at Podcast Alley, and other reasons mentioned above.68.62.22.139 21:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • keep This article is part of the Podcasting WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's knowledge of notable podcasts, and podcast-related information. 150.203.35.205 00:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A google news search [26] suggests some third-party discussion, though mainly concerning a cyber-squatting case. Best regards TreeKittens 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason for deletion is given and the nominator has obviously done no research on this topic. Keith and the Girl is a massively popular podcast. This article is from the New York Observer [27] Nick mallory 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per non-trivial coverage in reliable source found by Nick mallory. Article topic is notable and verifiable from independent sources. TreeKittens 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because the tagline has vulgarities doesn't mean it should be deleted from Wikipedia. This project is not censored and is hardly grounds for deletion. The podcast has enough daily reach and cited print articles and national radio interviews to meet notability. I expect this should WP:SNOW soon. --Breno talk 01:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The podcast does seem to have gotten enough coverage in mainstream sources to merit an article. --- The Bethling(Talk) 01:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because no reason for deletion is given in the nomination (or anywhere else in this AfD, for that matter. -Chunky Rice 03:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a top rated podcast in podcast alley , they have won overseas podcasting awards ,KATG's had a large noticable presents in the main stream media mid july 07 , the 100's of podcasting articles in main stream media print and TV where KATG are either featured or mentioned heres is a reference for them from New Zealand from 2 weeks ago www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=10453943 I know they have global appeal to tens of thousands of listerners Cameronpatterson
  • Keep. This article was put up for proposed deletion [28] a couple of days ago and the reason given was that it "Seems to be about some kind of video blog". The article isn't about a video blog it's about an audio podcast that's produced 500+ shows. More importantly merely being a video blog is just not a reason for wanting to delete an article. Is there something about video blogs (aka video podcasts, not that this is one) that precludes them from an encyclopaedia? The deletion proposal doesn't seem to have been thought through. "Hmmmm" is not the best form of reasoning when you're trying to get an article removed. I think it's an OK article. It's not amazing but it's definitely not bad. It looks like it has references from reasonably noteworthy sources too. There is a New York Times [29] reference if anyone wants to add it to the references section (you need to sign up a free account with the NYT to view it). The podcast has a large following (I've read their merchandising sales on their own quoted as $80000+ in a news article somwhere recently which seems to indicate a large fanbase), their fans regularly tattoo themselves with the podcast's logo which in my book is heading towards a cult following, it's spawned three other related podcasts, a cultural popularisation of the word "Brumski", a micro culture of wearing of logo'd t-shirts on Wednesday's and has been featured in their niche's media [30]. There's plenty of notability although notability isn't actually the objection, being a video blog (sic) is. D2lraXBlZGlh 04:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While all comentators could have been more expressive in there reasoning, no consensus to delete is apparent and a quick review of the article shows enough independent sourcing to counter the bare claim of non-notability. Eluchil404 21:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaahl

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

Link spam for NN musician. PEAR (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. I can't claim to be much of a fan of the music he performs, but he's the lead singer of a notable band and has also done some work with at least one other band with an album, as well as appearing in a notable documentary. I'm not sure where the "linkspam" comes from, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I may like Gorgoroth and have a considerable amount of respect for Gaahl, but the reason I'm opposing this notion because it is unfounded and uneccessary, especially when many other notable musicians have wikipedia articles. Gorgoroth and its members are exceptionally notable for a black metal band, especially after having aroused a great deal of controversy. - Dark Prime 11:48, 8 August 2007
  • Keep. GoogleMe 22:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gaahl is definitely a man of interest for many people whether they are fans of Gorgoroth or not. His notability also justifies an individual page. Archwyrm 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdeleted Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carrie Underwood's Second Studio Album

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Carrie Underwood's Second Studio Album
Carrie Underwood's Second Studio Album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very little content -- there are references, but if the only thing that can be confirmed is the release date, why bother? Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, content should be limited right now only to the main article.--JForget 00:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate once the thing is released (or close to release) and has notable information to include in an article. --Yamla 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Caldorwards4 03:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because Billboard says it all: [31]. If you delete the page right now, it might be reopened in a short time. Bull Borgnine 01:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you can put the release date and stuff on the main Carrie Underwood page -- and re-create the album once we know the album's title AND tracklisting. Having a page called "(singer)'s (nth) album" is almost always stupid in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acquire software

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

Non-notable software. No assertion of notability in article. No reliable sources found after internet search. Chunky Rice 17:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems like quite a large and notable company. Their software is widespread and the article is very well-written and semi-comprehensive. This in no way meets the criteria for deletion. --Queer As Folk 17:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what about this software is notable? None of the things you mention, aside from being a bit vague (the company doesn't appear to be particluarly large), satisfy the criteria esablished for notability. -Chunky Rice 17:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete No external sources, questionable notability. Being well written is no reason to keep an article. Faithlessthewonderboy 17:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Normally I would call WP:SPAM as well but although the article was created by a newly registered user and is quite long and detailed despite the only source being the company web site it doesn't seem spammy to me. So, if someone can establish notability per WP:N I'll change to keep. Until then a delete from the Danish judge. MartinDK 17:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Well it looks like the user who created the article, "neilsfarr" is an employee of the company that makes the software.[32] So, some COI issues, as well.-Chunky Rice 18:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Granted. Definately a conflict of interest but the article isn't spammy just overly detailed with no references. Anyway, notability is the main issue and so far all we got is a candidate for A7 speedy. MartinDK 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. That's why I didn't tag it for speedy. And I'm not sure if A7 applies to a software product. It should, I think, but the critereon expressly states, "people, groups, companies and web content." -Chunky Rice 18:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The only reference is to the company's website. No independent reviews, articles or discussions regarding the product appear in the article, and I couldn't find any myself. Cap'n Walker 19:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Thankyou for your comments. Although related to the company which created it (the product itself is owned by another company, but I am the one who knows most about it so am best placed to describe it), I am also on the board of POPAI Digital UK and am well known and respected in the Digital Signage industry. I have tried to keep it as a non-advertising but instead informative page and I am in the middle of adding other external links to this page and also bringing the digital signage page more up to date with what has been happening in the industry. If you can advise what to change rather than delete, I would appreciate it - especially as you say this is my first article. I noticed that there are other pages on Wiki which seem more or less similar yet contain less information (e.g. infochannel, or the list on Media player ), and people looking for Acquire software on Wiki would only find an old board game, but I did not want to serioulsy alter that page by adding info to it but rather link from it(see acquire) Neilsfarr 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC) — Neilsfarr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The primary issue with the article is that it doesn't assert notability. You can read about Wikiepdia's notability guideline here. The most common way to do this is to show that the subject of the article has received coverage from reliable sources (read about reliable sources here) independent of the subject. Other possilibities to show notability would be if the subject had won a notable award or had received some form of recognition from a notable body. -Chunky Rice 20:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources are found to establish notability. This is not an easy name to look for Corpx 03:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As a newbie, I would appreciate a bit of help: I have checked the 'reliable sources' item, but can I check what would be classed as a source? There are many signage operators who have and will report the quality, usefulness and the number of installations (news articles also reference some operators using the system) and 10,000 + installed units. (these would not be PR pieces) However, as Digital Signage is a narrow field, there are limited areas whereby notoriety (awards, information) that is not PR related that a signage operator or directly influencable company could provide, and because of the narrow field, normal 'general public' publications would not normally carry a story. Any ideas as to what would be 'approved' source? Secondly, I appreciate I only have a limited time to provide this/these links, so what happens if the article is deleted before I link the information? Do I just reapply it with the links attached? Thanks! Neilsfarr 12:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Typically what is required is a source with some sort of editorial oversight and fact checking. Signage operators probably would not qualify. But if there's some sort of trade journal or something like that, that would likely qualify. Should the article be deleted, you can ask that it be moved to your userspace where you can work on it until it is ready to be moved back to the main space. -Chunky Rice 13:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, the sources do not have to be available online. As Chunky Rice points out the central issue is that the source is reliable and that the source contains non trivial coverage, in other words a single reference or other trivial mention is not enough. Also, reprints of press releases are generally not accepted. MartinDK 14:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hairy Chest of Resilience Badge (Urban Rangers)

The Hairy Chest of Resilience Badge (Urban Rangers) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Normally I'm quite defensive of stuff labelled 'fancruft', however, a fictional award apparantly only mentioned in a single episode of Ed, Edd n Eddy is really pushing it. Non notable and lacking in reliable sources. Darksun 17:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete WP is not a collection of random information. This is not at all notable, nor is it sourced. Faithlessthewonderboy 17:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Non-notable fictional award. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge (or at least redirect) to Urban Rangers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - I'd say redirect but I can't imagine anyone typing "The Hairy Chest Of Resilience" into the search box. -WarthogDemon 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The text of this article appears to be already present in Urban Rangers (which itself had been redirected to Ed, Edd n Eddy until content was recently readded to it). Also, does the edit history of this article's creator look to anyone else suspiciously like those of the many socks[33] of blocked user Danny Daniel? Deor 00:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete no notability whatsoever. I also restored the redirect. This kind of garbage needs to be deleted with strong prejudice. Wikipedia is not a kiddie fan page. -- Elaich talk 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of notability Corpx 03:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. (presuming that what little is worthwhile has been merged) Mathmo Talk 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable secondary sources. Jay32183 01:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arguments pointing up the lack of reliable secondary sources establishing notability were convincing and weighted as such. If such sources exist but have not yet been prodcued, it could be taken to deletion review. Prior nomination, which closed as "speedy keep", did not appear to meet WP:SK criteria (unless I'm missing something). MastCell Talk 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reform Synagogue Youth

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Reform Synagogue Youth Articles for deletion/Reform Synagogue Youth (2nd nomination)
Reform Synagogue Youth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Organisation does not appear to be mentioned by any reliable, independent sources - there are none in the article and I can find none on the internet. Previous nomination ended in speedy keep which appeared to go against consensus.

Fails primary notability criteria Wikipedia:Notability as well as organizations notability criteria Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Guest9999 02:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is the UK branch of an international youth movement within Reform Judaism. See http://www.nfty.org/about/netzer/directory/ for a directory of national Netzer Olami groups. It's a notable topic, even if the person who contributed the article did not establish its notability to the satisfaction of Wiki-insiders.--orlady 03:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no notability established for this branch. Not every YMCA is notable because it is part of a global organization Corpx 03:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per orlady. Mathmo Talk 04:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 07:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Netzer Olami. Notability is not inherited, and arguments regarding the lack of independent secondary sources led to the close. Sourced information from the article can be merged into Netzer Olami, to which this page now redirects. MastCell Talk 20:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LJY-Netzer

LJY-Netzer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No long winded reason - just haven't found any evidence in the article or on the internet that the article meets the primary notability criteria of having recieved coverage by any reliable, independant sources (Wikipedia:Notability). The notability tag had been up for a while with no changes or comments Guest9999 01:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Yeshivish 19:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Netzer Olami, of which this group is a subsidiary. Most of the article is too specific and in too much jargon to be comprehensible or of interest to the average Wikipedian (though I happen to understand the jargon terms). Someone should leave me a note if you want help executing a merge. Shalom Hello 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • WeakDelete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 03:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Together with Reform Synagogue Youth (AFD nomination by the same nominator), this is the UK affiliate of the international Netzer Olami movement. Its relationship to Netzer Olami does not appear to be that of a subsidiary, but rather is that of an independent member of a coalition or network. --orlady 03:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 07:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - it's a very interesting and large organisation, and certainly satisfies the notability policy.--Rambutan (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Would you mind saying how it "satisfies the notability policy" (Wikipedia:Notability), being interesting (which is subjective) or large (which I would dispute) does not make up for a lack of reliable independant secondary sources which no one has yet shown any evidence of. [[Guest9999 23:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • The way I see it (as one disinterested observer who has no personal knowledge of these groups), Netzer Olami is a notable movement within a notable Jewish denomination, with good support for notability. Netzer Olami is, however, not a single entity, but an international network/coalition of national Netzer Olami organisations. That tells me that the individual constituent national organisations of Netzer Olami should be presumed notable, as long as there is solid evidence that they are real national organisations with recognition from the international entity and substantial participation (not, for example, something made up in school one day). The fact that national reform Judaism acknowledges the youth group and international Netzer Olami organisations such as Netzer Australia proclaim a connection with the UK group helps confirm that the UK group (which is apparently is one of the larger Netzer Olami units around the world) is a real component of the UK denomination and the global network. --orlady 01:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply As there are no independant sources or references (there are none mentioned in the article, I could find none and none have been mentioned in this debate) any information would likely come from the group's website (I would bet everything currently in the article can be found there). This essentially (in my opinion) means that the page would always be either a vanity project or advertisment - not an encylopaedia article. Regardless of this I still maintain that this lack of independant reliable sources or references means that the page fails the primary notability criteria. [[Guest9999 02:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]]
  • As to satisfying WP:NOTE, it is a constituent of Netzer-Olami, and is thus notable. Every British MP is notable even if they've only been in office for 30 seconds, because without the MPs there is no parliament. Plus, a Google search for LJY Netzer brings up 656 results, of which only the first four should be discounted for being affiliated with the source (three are from the LJY website, or the website of the parent body, Liberal Judaism; one is the WP page).--Rambutan (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Reply Having gone through the first thirty of the results I would have to disagree with your assessment of the google results. Of the first thirty only one seemed to be a reliable, independent secondary source and that wasn't really about LJY, just mentioning it in passing.
  • 1) Liberal Judaism page – affiliated
  • 2) (as above)
  • 3) LJY home page – affiliated
  • 4) Wikipedia page – not secondary source
  • 5) Dead Link
  • 6) Dead Link
  • 7) In first line of article reads “We aim…” – not secondary source
  • 8) “We make sure…” not secondary source
  • 9) Links to diary of events – not a secondary source
  • 10) Zionist youth council – LJY is a member – not independent secondary source
  • 11) LJY home page - not secondary source
  • 12) Directory which includes a person who is a member of LJY
  • 13) (as above)
  • 14) Page from Reform Synagogue Youth home page – not independent secondary source
  • 15) Contribution from members – not independent secondary source
  • 16) Promotional material (in pdf form) – not secondary source
  • 17) Wikipedia article – not secondary source
  • 18) Possible secondary source – [[34]] – does not give significant coverage – two one line mentions.
  • 19) Links to an e-mail address – not secondary source
  • 20) LJY MySpace page – not secondary source
  • 21) Search page – not secondary source
  • 22) Promotional information (as pdf) – not secondary source
  • 23) AOL video – not secondary source
  • 24) Reform Judaism page – debateable secondary source but isn’t actually about LJY
  • 25) NFTY website – affiliated
  • 26) (as above)
  • 27) Forum posts by group member – not secondary source
  • 28) List of addresses
  • 29) List of phone numbers
  • 30) Does not mention discuss LJY – not secondary source#

[[Guest9999 16:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, particularly on whether the sources found are sufficient material to establish notability. — TKD::Talk 08:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Segger Microcontroller Systems

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Segger Microcontroller Systems Articles for deletion/Segger Microcontroller Systems (2nd nomination)
Segger Microcontroller Systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted at AfD, was recreated a month later by a user (Info@segger-us.com) with a clear conflict of interest. Subject doesn't seem to be notable (whilst hits on Google are not the most accurate, a basic search gives about 13,000 results; however, if you whittle this down to exclude press releases, the company's own websites, and listings on vendor websites then you are left with fewer than 1000). Google news gives two hits — both press releases. The text of the article is also written such that it sounds like an advertisement. At first glance the article appears to be referenced, but one is a fleeting mention in a how-to tutorial, another is a press release written by the company itself (another quick look shows that the other two references are in promotional materials from the company or its associates). Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 16:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: even the nicely whittled down search has a lot of press releases. I went through the first 20+ hits: each was a vendor advertisement, trade journal, or press release. Too bad there isn't a Consumer Reports for the embedded system industry.... —EncMstr 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This company has been around for nearly two decades and has made partnerships with the likes of Mitsubishi Europe. As it happens I don't want to produce a microcontroller-based product that has a built-in graphical user interface, but it's possible that I could in the future and if that happens then I'm likely to hear about, and want to read neutral information about, this company. --Tony Sidaway 18:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the links there and this one Corpx 03:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Question: what is the significance of the Alacra link? It appears to be merely a $10 software product. —EncMstr 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it is $10 to view the article :) Corpx 14:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you summarise why it establishes notability? It seems to be a report on imports of their products to the UK. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm dont think I'm going to shell out $10 to view the article, but the title, and the small blub or google new suggests to me that this article gives significant coverage Corpx 17:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Looking again, the article to which you linked has a word count of 99. I don't think that you can get much significant coverage in that. I'm presuming that it's little more than "Segger Microcontroller Systems, based in Germany, have announced that they will begin shipping their LCD line of products to the UK" tagged on to a brief introduction to the company. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 17:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think 99 words is sufficient to qualify as "significant coverage", if it indeed does provide significant coverage. Maybe somebody who has access to this article can enlighten us on the contents Corpx 17:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: tenuous notability at best. If it has indeed been around for 20 years, there should be a long list of breakthroughs, accomplishments, and the like. The main products appear to be embOS and emWin: neither product is notable, merely competitive. —EncMstr 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. Satisfies WP:ORG - ,independent reviews exist. `'Míkka 17:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and salt if spam continues -- We've been through this once before, and now a blatantly WP:COI account is trying to re-insert the same material. There are no reliable sources and no assertions of notability -- those who claim notability should do more than a cursory check of ghits. Subject is no more notable now than when it was deleted before; the only thing I can find are press releases and vendor sites. Considering the article has been re-created by Info@segger-us.com and reads like an advertisement, it should go post haste. /Blaxthos 18:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • weak delete (again): This company is notable in its field, but sources still are a problem. this source used on the article appears to be written by Segger: "To help developers beat their timelines and development costs, we created emWin, the most efficient and comprehensive set of graphics libraries available today." Most of their products were mentioned in a buyers guide in this pdf (5M) of the April 06 Embedded Systems Engineering. John Vandenberg 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 via WP:SNOW ~Kylu (u|t) 01:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hisham Kelati

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

Notability not asserted. —« ANIMUM » 15:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, possibly even A7. Not even a single source, doesn't assert notability. Melsaran 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It tries to assert notability, so A7 does not apply, however he still isn't notable as there are no reliable sources, and cannot establish verifiability. Does not pass WP:BIO --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The primary author of the page (who is also the subject of the page; see Talk:Hisham Kelati) can only provide a not-yet-created website and Facebook group as sources. Iknowyourider (t c) 17:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's far below our radar because it's completely unverifiable. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Not notable. WP:COI. Violation of WP:AUTO. James Luftan contribs 19:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless third-party sources can establish notability - I can find none. Non-notable person. TreeKittens 01:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nom withdrawn. Singularity 04:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonviolent Peaceforce

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

While google shows plenty of directly related hits that this organization does exist, I've found no evidence that it is in any way notable, other than it does exist, and it conducts operations. Google search showed no references from major newspapers or news sites, no references by major NGO controlling boards, other, than that it exists. Only sources on the page are self-referential to the NVPF website. Previously read like an advertisement, but it isn't any better now due to lack of notability. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC) --UpdateI withdraw my nomination given the new data below. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Withdraw Nom as nom. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination given the new data below. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep A news archive search turns up results from newspapers from 2002-2006. Unfortunately, all of this coverage is subscription based now and I can't find anything recent so it does not help much for sourcing. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd be tempted to withdraw the nomination if they were multiple notable newspapers, but as far as I can tell, the only notable one is the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Then there is a small St. Paul news paper. Both hometown papers for where the organization is headquartered. clarify What I mean by that is if it can be shown that it's national papers that are carrying that story, I'll withdraw my nom. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The organization has received attention in the media far beyond hometown papers[35]. Moreover, it has not only been noted, but endorsed by an impressive assembly of nobel peace laureates, heads of states and international organizations[36]. — Sebastian 00:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Eight Nobel Peace Laureate endorsements in all, including the Dalai Lama. Has 94 Member Organizations on five continents. Two weeks ago the organization was granted Special Consultative Status by the UN (announcement pending). Executive Director Mel Duncan and Nonviolent Peaceforce will receive the Pfeffer International Peace Prize next month, an award that has often preceded the Nobel Peace Prize [37]

Article in Washington Post cites NP spokesman: [38].

  • Comment In light of these new sources, I withdraw this nomination. Closing admin, please take note. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annie Rhiannon

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

Blogger. Possible claims to fame: nominated for 2007 Irish Blog Awards, "coined" two words I have never heard of, and developing a website called Facebonk which sounds like a joke. No reliable sources are given as references (there's a Guardian link, but it's a section of their website where users can submit their own reviews of her blog). Google search gets lots of hits, but they all seem to be from the article subject herself posting on forums and blogs and such. Since May, the article's been prodded twice (first time by me) and had the notability tag placed and removed and replaced--the article's creator seems to be the only editor defending the article (his comment when removing last prod: "bloggers who enjoy larger readerships than many authors should tend to be included on what is, after all, a web based entity such as wikipedia"), so I'm bringing it to AFD for an outside decision. Propaniac 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Whilst the subject obviously spends an impressive amount of time pervading the internet the article still fails to assert notability, particularly in terms of WP:BIO. The claims that are made fall quite short of WP:V, also. That would make my vote one of Delete. OBM | blah blah blah 15:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article gives no proof of notability and I can't find any proof either. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not pass WP:BIO --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:NOTE. Ariel♥Gold 17:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 03:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian political jokes

Russian_political_jokes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This does not belong in an encyclopedia. As well, it is not notable, nor does it have reliable sources. Redflagflying 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see anything wrong with this article. It is properly sourced and seems very complete. I agree with Cubbi completely.Silver seren 14:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Having briefly gone through the article, I agree that as a part of Russian humour, and hence a significant part of Russian culture. Also, in Soviet Russia, the article keeps you!--Kylohk 14:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • keep, good article. SECProto 15:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Vat? Vat is zis anti-Яussian Afd supposed to mean? Vizdraw yourr nomination or ve'll crrush you vesterrn svines! No seriously, the article is good, a few more sources wouldn't hurt, but I don't see any major flaws in it. --Targeman 16:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasonably sourced, notable concept. You can tell a lot about a culture from their jokes. JulesH 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Snowball keep, possible WP:POINT at work here. Article passes WP:RSand WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article cites sources, I can't see anything wrong with it. A few more wouldn't go amiss, but that's no reason to delete it. Hut 8.5 19:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think a snowball is rolling down the Urals. This is hardly a "jokebook" article. What's considered humor is one of the most revealing aspects of a culture. I note that wikisource:ru has a category called "1001 политический анекдот" which, if I read Cyrillic right, is 1001 political anecdotes. Mandsford 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mandsford 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Heh, more like "1001 politichesky anekdot"!--Kylohk 01:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There was a long tradition of anti communist jokes in the Soviet Union as they were one of the few ways the population had of resisting the dismal tyranny the nominator seems so strangely fond of. The phenomenon has been discussed widely in third party sources. Nick mallory 00:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think a lot of users should research 'anti-communism.' If a citizen of the Soviet Union made a joke about the socialist state or its workings, it was not an 'anti-communist joke'. Anti-communism is a particular political trend/tendency of the McCarthyite variety. If you're serious about NPOV, it goes both ways. Also, could one of you that voted to keep please should me an entry in another encyclopedia anywhere on earth that has an entry like this? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a joke poke or collection of hand-me-down anecdotes and stories. Redflagflying 08:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Reducing all anti-Communism to its most paranoid extreme - McCarthyism - is very myopic, if I understood your statement correctly. Oh wait, "red flag flying", that pretty much explains your comment. I'd recommend Gulag and Cultural Revolution as two good places to start opening your eyes to the the grim reality behind the Potemkin façade. In the meantime, try to lighten up a bit :-) Humor is one of the very few things that distinguish us from animals, I say let's keep it. :-) --Targeman 09:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, opposition to communism ≠ anti-communism. I have a sense of humor, and I love jokes, they just don't belong in an encyclopedia. That would be the case whether or not they were about communism or the USSR. Further, things like "Communism was a humour-producing machine. Its economic theories and system of repression created inherently funny situations. There were jokes under fascism and the Nazis too, but those systems did not create an absurd, laugh-a-minute reality like communism" definitely do not belong in wikipedia, which is supposed to be NPOV; not to mention the fact that communism hasn't yet existed. I'd recommend you investigate the countless crimes of capitalism, which vastly outweigh the mistakes made during the construction of socialism (and which were made, as Sartre said "to make the revolution" not to expand the wealth of the already filthy rich), if that were appropriate here; but it's not, so keep that nonsense out. Redflagflying 14:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The sentence you mention is a quote from a reputable magazine, not OR. Humor is an extremely interesting and notable subject; indeed, it is often considered a distinguishing trait of a culture - the British and the Jews, to mention but two societies, take pride in of their particular brand of humor. Other cultures notoriously suffer from the proverbial stick up the ass, making international relations that little bit more volatile. As for the tired sophistry that Communism has not yet happened - don't worry, you'll grow out of it. There is a reason why all Communist countries have openly or tacitly abandoned their economic model. Communism is a bankrupt ideology and will hopefully never come back. Take this from someone who has actually had the dubious privilege of living under it. --Targeman 14:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Redflagflying, your delete arguments seem to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, two of many arguments which should be avoided. I dare say that every reader will find articles with which they disagree vehemently and, from their POV, seem unencyclopedic. Neither of those are grounds for deletion. Wikipedia is, after all, a consensus-driven community. —Travistalk 14:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a communist country. Sorry. You can join Fukuyama and hope all you want, but communism it not going away, and history is not ending; see: Cuba (which hasn't abandoned its economic model at all, contrary to your uninformed assertion), Venezuela, Nepal, Colombia, Philippines, etc. al. The dubious honor is living in countries were socialism was overthrown, for example Russia, where life expectancy has fallen at a rate unparalleled in history, and the main industries are now prostitution and organized crime. But really, this is not a place for this discussion. The bottom line is not the subject of the joke, but the fact that jokes are "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia." WP:Deletion lists that as a reason for deletion.Redflagflying 15:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I question the reality of the "jokes". Take the second one from the Imperial period, which makes a joke whose humor depends on understanding that "seven" is a number in English and that "ass" is something that will make people laugh. The Russian word for "seven" isn't "seven" and does "ass" mean something in Russian that may cause the giggles to stir? I doubt it. But without sources, any one is free to include anything they want and that's what we got. Carlossuarez46 19:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The subject is notable, and many parts are already sourced. It might not be hard for the most of the rest to be sourced too.--Kylohk 02:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject is notable, as political jokes in Russia have had (and still have) much cultural influence in Russian society. -Mardus 13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT nomination. The article could use a few more references, but it is certainly notable. Melsaran 11:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep In Soviet Russia, the article deletes you. per Cubbi spazure (contribs) 09:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 03:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vaughan Road Academy

Vaughan_Road_Academy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This AFD is for Vaughan Road Academy. The article is proposed for deletion. This is not a vote.

Delete the article: This article does not cite its sources. Parts of it are written like a highschool essay. It appears to be for a non-notable highschool. =::..note this afd has been listed at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive Gnangarra 06:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: I support deleting this article for the above reasons. Spa toss 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

— Spa toss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Even the name seems to be indicating it's a single purpose account. The editor's only edits have been to this AfD and an attempt at retaliation at another article.

Comment: Notable alumni does not necessarily establish notability for the school. And a school's hallway is not necessarily a useful source at Wikipedia. Spa toss 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep a distinguished and notable school with numerous notable alumni -- including a Nobel prize winner -- all backed up and supported by ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It is possible that the school has notable students but itself is not notable. Spa toss 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I can't imagine why we would delete this comprehensive and well-sourced article about a high school with a long history and many notable alumni. --orlady 05:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The article doesn't appear to list any sources. Spa toss 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, it looks like sources are being added. Spa toss 20:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete notability not established article uses primary source only, as per WP:V the subject needs to have been covered by multiple independent reliable sources. Gnangarra 06:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Is the Toronto Star a primary source? Alansohn 20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Toronto star article is about a person not the school, as such it doesnt provide anything in relation to the article subject notability isnt transferable, inherited, gifted or in any other the result of some other person notability . Gnangarra 07:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of notability per my views on the subject. Eusebeus 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, all secondary schools are notable per WP:SCHOOL, especially ones over 80 years old. Article could use some clean up though. Leuko 20:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I just read WP:SCHOOL, and it has other criteria besides secondary and age. Some of which may have been met since the afd was proposed. Spa toss 21:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per lack of sources covering this school. All I see are directory listings and small mentions on pages about alumns. WP:SCHOOL is defunct now and nowhere does it say that any school is inherently notable Corpx 03:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a distinguished and notable school with numerous notable alumni including a Nobel prize winner, obviously it is sufficiently notable. Burntsauce 18:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment on notability transfer from notable person to school (or other buildings) they visited, frequented, studied in...: This argument is not good even if true. Notability of persons who happened to attend the school gives the school no more notabilty than it would if a notable person had frequented my neighborhood McDonalds. Now, if you have a relaible source associating a notable person with the school, that would be different. School hallways are reliable sources. Spa toss 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:Writing an article on the McDonalds at Waco Texas simply because both George Bush and David Koresh (two notable people) ate there does not establish the notablity of the McDonalds at Waco Texas. Spa toss 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep theres a significant difference between a one time visit, and several years of daily school attendance. This isnt a George Washington slept here argument.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment:It wouldn't matter if George Bush and David Koresh ate at the McDonalds at Waco Texas everyday for several years. You would need independant second party RS to make the observation, and to make the subject notable. Are you suggesting that these notable alumni would not have been notable if they had attended a different school? If so, you'll need a RS to back you up. Spa toss 19:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • (Indenting adjusted above; please readjust if this changes the intent of any editor affected). The article does provide reliable sources for these individuals and their attendance at (and connection to) the school, a school at which they spent several hours per day for several hundred days, having attended just about every day for a four-year period. I agree that it would be very hard to make a causal connection between one's eating regularly at a particular McDonald's and the person they became down the line, though perhaps an excellent case could be made for Bill Clinton. In contrast, the attendance of these notables at Vaughan Road Academy and their participation and instruction in athletic, drama and science programs offered by the school is inextricably linked to their ultimate notability as a professional football player, actor or Nobel Prize winner. The widely-accepted practice of recognizing notability for a school based on notability of alumni who have attended the school is based on the recognition that a school, and especially a high school, plays an integral role in shaping the future notable, all with reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating their connection to the school. No similar case could be made for a notable having eaten at a restaurant or slept in a home having any causal connection influencing the individual's future notability. Alansohn 20:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the nominator has left the building. --orlady 23:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the strong arguments made above, the notability of this school is clear, and a dozen different reliable sources all confirm this. Silensor 07:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The very notable alumni are sufficient for notability--very much so. What makes schools notable? Most of the time, what their student accomplish. If those who though all schools notable would instead pay attention to the individual characteristics in their arguments, we'd get more good ones kept with less difficulty. If the people who wanted to delete it would pay attention instead to the non-notable schools that are still so prevalent in WP, they too would accomplish more. A really strange nomination, this one. 08:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Close?

It doesn't appear that further discussion is likely to lead to a concensus to delete. So should we closed the Afd, and remove the tag? Spa toss 03:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you are withdrawing the nomination? Leuko 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reynold Heatherington, Lord Aylesbury

Reynold Heatherington, Lord Aylesbury (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Suspected to be a non-notable individual. Google has only Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors matching search criteria, the article itself is also an orphan. The Marquess of Ailesbury page (rightful holder of the title Lord Aylesbury) does not have him listed, neither does List of Speakers of the British House of Commons. Roleplayer 13:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and probable hoax. Article asserts he was speaker of the house of commons, yet complete list of speakers of the 1900's does not include him. Nothing on Google but mirrors. Nothing in the history of the title of Lord Aylesbury and nothing on Aylesbury House or Hollywell Hall supposed places of birth and death. Pedro |  Chat  14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete He was apparently never the Speaker of the House of Commons, but if one clicks on the "Speaker" link in the infobox, it leads to a disambiguation page, where it says he could be merely someone who speaks a language, hardly sufficient to justify an article. The MI5 links would doubtless be hard to verify (spies/counterspies will be secretive). The Marquess of Ailesbury page says he was never that (differently spelled) Lord, and the implication is that there was not a title spelled "Aylesbury." That leaves the rank of Major in the military, which would not be sufficient to justify an article absent additional evidence of notability. Unless the creator of the article or others can find some sources to verify any of the claims by the end of the AFD debate period, the article should be deleted as failing WP:N WP:V and WP:BIO. Edison 14:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. --PEAR (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note - FreeBMD, although only 99% complete for the 1880s does not have a Reynold Heatherington listed, even with "Phonetic search surnames" checked. -- Roleplayer 17:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Very little notability asserted (being major in the unit) and it certainly not enough to keep this article Corpx 03:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Very strongly suspect a hoax, as the Complete Peerage doesn't list a title of Lord Aylesbury, of which the subject of this article is supposedly the ninth. There is a Marquis of Ailesbury, but no lord, and the family name of the marquis is not the same. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. DrKiernan 14:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definitely a hoax. --Mantanmoreland 16:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BackDrop Club

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

Reads like an advert, particularly the biographical section. Needs sourcing and editing for NPOV in order to be kept. Arthur Frayn 12:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete The second link is to Robin Roberts's resume. The primary author, Robinr57 (talk · contribs), is obviously Mr. Roberts or someone who knows him, and is using Wikipedia to promote an otherwise insignificant agenda. Shalom Hello 14:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing the double-whammy of both WP:BIO and WP:ORG. There is the slightest hint of WP:SPAM but the most worring aspect is that the bulk of the article isn't about the club at all, but it's founder... giving the impression that WP:COI has been blatantly ignored. OBM | blah blah blah 15:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 03:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Per outcome of a DRV this deletion is endorsed as a speedy deletion. That is, G4 will not apply if reliable sources are subsequently found. Spartaz Humbug! 18:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eternum Online

Eternum Online (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Eternum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - dab page, per comments below. Marasmusine 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No assertion of notability (WP:N), no independent references (WP:V). Google search doesn't look promising. If Speedy A7 (for 'web content') also covers web-based games, this could be a speedy. Marasmusine 12:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per nom Percy Snoodle 14:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Though there is 1 short article on this game from www.mmorpg.com, it doesn't satisfy WP:RS as it's only 1 independant source. I'm on the fence on the A7, I don't think A7 really applies...it's a close one, but I'm going to learn towards that it doesn't apply. Regardless if speedy applies or not, there are not enough sources independant of the developer (and the game is only in beta right now anyways) and should still be deleted until more info on game comes out --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and lacking in sources. I'd suggest the DAB Eternum be added to this as well, as it was created for the purpose of this article and a prog rock band which doesn't have an article. No bias against recreation if the subject becomes notable. QuagmireDog 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete I reckon A7 counts for this. No notability claimed at all. Get rid of the Eternum disambig page too. Miremare 17:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn web content. Browser game not even out of beta. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caroline Mulroney

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Caroline Mulroney Articles for deletion/Caroline Mulroney (2nd nomination)
Caroline Mulroney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Children of Canadian politicians are not notable in their own right. DDD DDD 11:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The only assertion of notability of this person is being satirized once, sixteens years ago. --Targeman 12:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not assert notability guidelines. Moreover a google search shows up only a few links for this subject. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability is not inherited, and has done nothing notable herself. I don't believe A7 applies as I believe the statement of her being the PM's daughter is their attempt and establishing notability. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unlike her brother, Caroline is not notable, as noted above. At best some can be added to Brian Mulroney. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As I stated in the previous AfD nomination: Being the the daughter of a fairly famous man, marrying the son of a fairly famous man, and having a third fairly famous man sing at the wedding does not a notable person make. Victoriagirl 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge to Bryan Mulroney as she is not as notable as Ben.--JForget 00:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Unsure what there is to merge here. The Brian page lists his children's names. Shouldn't that suffice? Now, not that I am supporting a merger, but if it were merged, could you JForget suggest something for the Brian page?DDD DDD 02:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The 1991 Controversy surrounding Frank Magazine and which Bryan denounced it could be an element it can be merge there.--JForget 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Do I get to vote? Or is my vote already included when I nominated the article? V'Girl, a year ago, captured the essence of this: any claim of notability is related to the people in her life: daughter of..., brother of..., wife of... For good measure, Strong Delete. DDD DDD 02:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Your delete recommendation is indeed implicit in your nomination unless you state otherwise. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (switch to delete; see below) as per Uucp's arguments in the previous AfD. Although we might not like it that having a famous father and attending high society events etc makes one the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple sources, it does happen and it was so with Ms. Mulroney. Much of the news coverage is not now accessible via Google; however, she was frequently in the news a few years ago, and has strong name recognition in Canada, which is not the case with her siblings other than Ben, and not the case with some other more recent Prime Minister's children. --Paul Erik 03:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes there was press coverage of her wedding (or at least it was noted in the press). However, she is a private person and I'd argue that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires us to avoid tabloid-style journalism, which this is. If the tabloid content is removed, then the article might not even be a stub. The article does not currently have any properly sourced statements, which is required for a BLP. If the article it kept, it needs sourcing quickly. Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment While I can't agree with the claim that Caroline Mulroney has strong name recognition in Canada, I acknowledge that, as the daughter of a former Prime Minister, she receives occasional mention in social notes. But this was my point when responding to Uucp's arguments. Caroline Mulroney's name is nearly always followed by "daughter of former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney" (or a similar description) - just one sign that she has no name recognition. More to the point, I have been unable to find any indication that she "has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", as callled for in WP:BIO. And I point out that the guideline adds: " If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I would argue that coverage of Caroline Mulroney has been trivial, at best. Victoriagirl 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Your points are well taken, and I agree that BLP calls for better sourcing than what the article now has. But as for tabloid journalism, my recollection is that much of her media coverage was not of the tabloid nature but rather along the lines of a profile of someone who is in the public eye (e.g., as with the current cover story in MacLean's [39] about Laureen Harper). If we had web access to all the media coverage around the time, I think a much better article could be written about Caroline Mulroney quite easily. Now, since I have already ventured into the dubious realm of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'll bring up the other point from the previous AfD, which is that much of the arguments about notability made here would also apply to the Chelsea Clinton article. Anyway, I would still argue to keep the article, remove controversial unsourced statements, reduce to a stub if need be, but allow it to remain for others to build upon it. --Paul Erik 23:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment As it was never part of my argument, I won't address the issue of tabloid journalism. My point is that Carolyn Mulroney fails WP:BIO. Chelsea Clinton "has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", one recent example being this piece in the July 30 edition of The New York Times. I have not yet found a single piece which might be similarly described dealing with Carolyn Mulroney. Recognizing that web access to the media coverage from the time her father was Prime Minister is something less that thorough, I've checked the Canadian Index. Nothing. Victoriagirl 01:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed to delete. Good idea, checking the Canadian Index; it is of course better to rely on that than on my memory of the media coverage from that time period! Thanks for that. --Paul Erik 01:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I'm not afraid to repeat myself from last time: Relationship to notable person not inherently notable. "First Lady", "daughter", "son", "uncle", "pet", etc., is not a Canadianism. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the society page. Agent 86 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Agent 86. GreenJoe 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Victoriagirl--Kelapstick 19:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge 1991 Frank incident to Brian Mulroney's Second-term section. Then Delete Caroline and Redirect to her father's article. Does not have notability as a Celebrity independent of her family. Canuckle 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Granted, I do see CBC describing her nuptials as "wedding of the year" [40] with "more than 400 guests including former U.S. president George Bush and wife Barbara, Queen Noor of Jordan and former TV talk-show host Kathie Lee Gifford" [41] and it helped break the career of Michael Buble...But those can be adequately covered in her father's and Buble's articles. Canuckle 20:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Notability is not inherited...That last AFD should've been closed as a delete Corpx 03:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Paul Erik. Mathmo Talk 01:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I understand you want to keep articles from being deleted. Your user page is devoted to the deleting/saving of wiki articles. However, I think your "per Paul" defence is a bit weak. The article is about a non-notable person. It's written like tabloid journalism. It's one thing to have (m)any article(s) on wikipedia. It's another to have articles of quality. This article has got to go.DDD DDD 11:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete notability cannot be inherited. JPG-GR 03:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curtis Holbrook

Curtis Holbrook (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - Non-noteable movie extra/chorus member. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:NOT#NEWS, the list goes on. Not much else to say, really. The subject has done nothing noteworthy in order to warrant an article. An IP initially re-directed the article to Hairspray (2007 film), but that edit was un-done. Thoughts? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - It does appear he is probably only notable for that Film, and even that notabilty isn't established. If the article was improved, and notablity in other areas was established, there might be a case for keeping it. John Hayestalk 11:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete only role does not look like a major rule. In the future, be sure to add {{subst:afd1}} tags to articles that are nominated for AFD Corpx 03:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as ber above Ixistant 22:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The arguments for keeping are mostly weak, amounting to "it's notable", which is by itself not much of an argument. Although the mass nomination makes it difficult to defend individual articles, advocates for keeping could have tried to show that ample reliable sources can be provided for at least one of these hadiths. Advocates for deletion, on the other hand, employ WP:NOT and WP:NOR, which are strong policy arguments, and the level of sourcing in the articles (ranging from poor to nonexistent) serves as ample prima facie confirmation of the OR claim. Sandstein 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hadith of the demise of Muhammad

Hadith of the demise of Muhammad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a classic case of what Wikipedia is not (i.e. a textbook). Contains a commentary (which appears to be OR since no secondary source is cited) on a hadith. → AA (talk) — 10:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The following related articles should also be considered:

  • Strong delete all. User:Striver has created a veritable fiefdom of original research, after the sadly correct observation that it's a lot easier to create articles full of unsourced opinion then in is to add the same to existing (watchlisted) articles. For all practical purposes, he has appointed himself as Wikipedia's official interpreter of Islamic scripture, and a palpably opinionated one at that.Proabivouac 11:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would also like to add that where the information is relevant, it is included in the relevant articles (e.g. Muhammad, Fatimah, Abu Bakr, etc.) and the hadith by themselves are not notable as such. → AA (talk) — 11:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge relevant info, then delete all. Some of the information is sourced, but there is not enough of it to merit a separate article on each of these - some don't have any proper references, just the few verses of the Qur'an mentioned in the article. Reads as OR and textbook. Hersfold (talk/work) 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all as per Proabivouac. many of these "Hadith of" articles are simply needless. ITAQALLAH 15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all, and repair by adding references and deleting Strivers original research. Differences in the point of view between the Sunni and Sh'ia sects needs to be explained and expanded upon. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Upon deletion of Striver's original research, there will be nothing left. Some have been tagged as lacking sources or needing cleanup for over a year; the response has been to create still more problem articles. Deletion will not prevent anyone from creating sourced articles on these topics in the future.Proabivouac 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. --PEAR (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The primary article, at least, seems to have copyright violation issues. At least some of the text (Sunni/Shi'a view sections) is copied word-for-word from here. WIthout taking the time to review all the articles, I can't say for sure, but I'd be willing to bet other copyvio issues would be found in them. Ariel♥Gold 17:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. We don't need an article on every important hadith in Sunni & Shi'a Islam. We can accomplish the same goal of highlighting the difference of opinions between the groups by the main topic of the hadith (e.g., the hadith on rajm (stoning) can be discussed in the article on rajm; the hadith on the merits of Fatimah can be highlighted in the article on Fatimah (there already seems to be a Sunni/Shi'a section on her article)). Pepsidrinka 18:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • weak delete, reads like a bunch of quotations. Would be better served in wikisource? Mathmo Talk 00:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all From what I understand, a hadith is a venerable transcript of what had been oral tradition (one could describe the Gospels in the same way); in the case of Islam, an authority supplementary to the Qu'ran. Correct me if I'm wrong, or completely off base... I won't be offended. Maybe it should be a wikisource, but if it isn't, then I would argue it shouldn't be deleted yet. I note that the nominator says that we should "consider" deleting the other items listed, which some could argue is not actually a nomination. Verily, verily, I hateth to smite all the hadiths.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) Oops. Mandsford 02:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess you could compare it to a verse in the Gospel and basically each of these articles is a "verse" with OR commentary by the article creator. Regarding the nomination, I have tagged each individual article for AfD and if the wording on this page is incorrect, I apologise but feel free to correct as required. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
What grounds to you have for claiming that my contributions are OR? That's quite a big statment, and i hope you can back it up. --Striver - talk 02:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The article as it was then, had no secondary sources and referenced one of the statements to a single primary source (Hadith is a primary source - not secondary). The views section (with a single sentence for each view) has no references and reads like an interpretation of the narrations. Statements of such ilk are considered OR. Aside from that, as has been mentioned by others here, the titles of the articles themselves are OR. The introduction to most of these "Hadith of..." articles states "Although the narrations are prominently quoted and referred to, they do not have any formal name..." (which itself questions the notability of these) but every article IS given a name thought up by Wikipedians. Perhaps some of these events are notable and the article should be on the event itself but having articles purely on the basis of explaining a hadith or a verse of the Qur'an is a task for Wikisource. → AA (talk) — 10:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course is a there a reference to a primary source, when quoting one. That is standard, just look at any news article, they quote the newspapers, not some secondary source book. And of course is the view section an interpretation of the narration, what should it else be?! "View" and "interpretation" are almost synonymos. And no, just because i did not provide a source at that time does not make the text OR: it just makes it unsourced. There is a huge difference, one is breaking WP rules, the other simply needs more work. Please do not confuse this issues when addressing my contributions. And yes, we do have lots of other very very notable articles were the title itself is the target of hotly wikipedian debates, one example being the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. It has entire sections in the talk page were wikipedians are arguing what name they should make up for the article (over 10 suggestions!), since it does not have any standardized name. By the same logic, are you questioning the notability of that event`? And yes, the title disclaimer is informative, honest and accurate. Wikisource collects primary sources, wikipedia documents views, events and such - this is the perfect place for this article.--Striver - talk 10:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The references cited in 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, are discussing the specifics of the article subject (i.e. blowing up aircraft over the atlantic). The sources cited in the articles up for AfD, are not on discussions about the article title itself. Hadith of mutuality with Ali is just a narration so is Hadith of the blind man. Hadith of Learning Qur'an from four people does not explain why it's notable. There are hundreds if not thousands of hadith that the Shia and Sunni disagree on but as a theme, they are not notable in general. Where it can be shown that a hadith has been the primary subject of scholarly discourse and references beyond primary sources can be cited, it would be appropriate to have an article. But for most of these (where it's simply a narration of the hadith), it belongs in Wikisource. It would be appropriate to take them one at a time and re-create it to a level where WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOR are satisfied and them move onto the next one and as others have suggested, there's nothing to stop that even if the current articles are deleted. → AA (talk) — 12:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't bring up 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot to make any points about sources, i brought it up to void your claim regarding "non-standard title = non notable". I might have assumed the notability of some hadith and not thoroughly explained them, and this can of course be improved. Being a Muslim, i might have assumed notability were it is not self evident in the view of a non-Muslim that is not versed in Islam. Regarding "hadith that the Shia and Sunni disagree on but as a theme, they are not notable in general", you are self evidently mistaken, controversy = notability, specially when talking about the two biggest denominations in the worlds next largest religion (billion people) having a controversy about the second source of Islam itself - that is as self-evident as it gets - unless you have an agenda. And of course is there volumes of books written that use this hadith in their argument, and each having their own view of them - and that is what the article does, present the hadith and the views on them, something that this specific article does more clearly now that i have contributed to it: it quotes two scholars, two books, and two sites and there is a lot more to quote, i did all that in just a few hours research. I don't get why you are so keen on deleting this, it's is obvious that they are notable, verifiable and sourcable, even if it maybe is not done right now - but having an incomplete article regarding has never been an argument for deleting.--Striver - talk 15:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Striver, unlike last year's airline plots, these sayings have been around for over a millennium. If they are such central components of Shi'a Islam, why does it fall to you to gather and name them? If this goes any further,you may go down in history as one of the most important exegetes in the history of Shi'a Islam.Proabivouac 18:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all None of these articles proves it deserves to exist. Beit Or 06:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki to wikisource - Not the place for original text like this + commentary without sources Corpx 03:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. These articles are mostly quoteframs. --Wasell(D) 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As said above, hadith are the secondary source of Islam, as well as notable historical documents. This one is regarding one very controversial issue, so it deserves an article. Granted, the article is not long, but that is a reason to expand, not delete. Also, why do you claim i have added original research? That implies that the text i have added is unsourcable, something evidently not true. A relevant argument would include that this hadith is either non-notable, or un-expandable, both not being the case. Ill expand a bit on the article right away. --Striver - talk 00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Striver, the Shi'a vs. Sunni view sections of which you are so fond - and "vs." is the appropriate term here - are original research, as is most every other word in these articles besides the quoted sayings themselves. The parts that aren't OR are just quotes.Proabivouac 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that i have backed up the section with references, and expanded it, are you prepared to admit that you did not know what you were talking about when you claimed it was OR?--Striver - talk 02:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Striver, sources such as these[42][43][44] are hardly credible. Question, do any of them use the term, "Hadith of the demise of Muhammad?" Google shows nothing,[45]. The very titles of these articles are your original research.Proabivouac 08:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
That is credible sources for the purpose: documenting normal Shi'a views. It maybe a questionable source for neutral academic medieval history or rocket science, but for the purpose quoted, that is documenting Shi'a views of that particular hadith, it is a near perfect source. Regarding title, see my response above.--Striver - talk 10:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
All references need to be quoted from reliable sources. Using polemic/apologetic websites to show divergence in views on hadith where over 1000 years of scholarly discourse exist on anything really notable, goes to prove that these hadith aren't notable as if they were then there would be scholarly debate that could be cited. → AA (talk) — 12:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Bro, you expect me to source religious text, but not use religious and apologetic websites? C'mon. That sites contain online books that have been cited - what more do you expect? Quoting New York Times? The hadith have been included in the very first hadith collections, Sahih Bukhari, and there is volumes of commentary written about that source in it self - will you be happier if i link to one of those Arabic commentaries? Oh, that would also be linking to a site... maybe if just wrote "for reference, see Arabic commentary on Sahih Bukhar", would that make you happy? The content of the article will not be altered dramatically, the stated views are correct, and i added references in English, readily available online. --Striver - talk 15:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Striver, just because something appears on a Shi'a website doesn't make it "the Shi'a view." It's as if we had Jack Chick creating articles about the "Christian view" of various bible passages, and assuring us in all sincerity, bro, trust me, this is the Christian view, then pointing to websites that confirm this. If these websites are where you got your information (someone mentioned copyvios above) that's just another compelling reason the articles should be deleted.Proabivouac 18:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Somebody argued that the hadith should be merged into the main article. That is simply not practical, the main article simply glosses over the most important parts of his life, not even going into details of large event as the battle of Badr. It is only natural to have several articles with different scope when dealing with the biographies of a person that Michael H. Hart called "the most influential person in history". --Striver - talk 00:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep substantial cleanup required for most, but it should be an absolutely trivial matter to demonstrate note for these. MrZaiustalk 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Working on it... --Striver - talk 01:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs cleanup and sourcing, not deletion. Edward321 02:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I doubt anyone here would object to the articles being recreated if and when they are well sourced. Remember, sourcing isn't just a technicality, but the only way we have to verify that the information we're disseminating is accurate. Even the titles appear to be the inventions of the creator. As it is, we may be misinforming - even wildly misinforming - the public about traditional interpretations of Islamic scripture. If Wikipedia says something false about something so important, we harm readers, and degrade the encyclopedia's reputation by casting doubt upon everything else one might read here. To risk this is unethical, and trumps "I find this potentially interesting." A Wikipedia which doesn't get that is a Wikipedia which should be shut down.Proabivouac 03:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Title objection addressed above, that "delete when in doubt" is applicable to a living person's biographies (since they can sue), not this kind of articles. And no, i don't want to disseminate misinformation, studying Islam is one of my main interests, and letting people know about what i have read is something i value. If you find any particular statement i made questionable, then please by all means, contact me and i shall try to provide a source and better information. Much information and lots of sources is optimal, a summary lacking sources needs work, it is not a grounds for deleting. You are familiar with the concept "stub" are'nt you? Wikipedia is much better of having stubs for this kinds of articles then having nothing.--Striver - talk 11:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable, whether they be stub articles or fully fledged FAs. If the article is about diseminating multiple views on a theme (e.g. interpretation of hadith or Quranic verse), then it must be shown that those views have been discussed as the main theme in reliable sources to pass the notability criteria. Stubs cannot be an excuse for creating unsourced articles and although in many cases it is not a reason for deletion, it does question the notability and verifiability of the information. The onus is on the editor who wishes to add the information to source it to show that it passes WP:V and WP:N. In the cases of these articles, that does not appear to be the case. → AA (talk) — 11:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I just did, did you miss the books, scholars and websites i quoted? What is the problem, explain it to me more simply, i don't get it. You expect an entire book written about this sole event, and nothing more? And if anything more is added to the book, then this hadith would not be it's "primary theme" and hence non-notable? I did quote books and scholars that use this narration in arguments, and even go as far as bashing other scholars view on this hadith - what more do you want? --Striver - talk 15:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all, notable. Everyking 07:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please provide an argument of why you believe they are notable. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 12:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all are origional research, however in the future, please nominate them individually, and not as a group in case that they may improve.--SefringleTalk 03:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all are orginal research. Harlowraman 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all view. They are all, to some extent, sourced and developing concepts from sources is not OR. If there are are POV concerns, and since I am not familiar with the subject matter I cannot comment on this, then the articles should be appropriately tagged for improvement requesting the addition of balancing material. In my view the better approach is fixing/improving not deleting. Bridgeplayer 17:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment The problem is that there are thousands of these narrations and verses of the Qur'an and there are disagreements on many of the them between the Shia and Sunni. This does not alone make the hadith itself (as opposed to the event that is being narrated) notable. I think an analogy could be given from the Bible. We wouldn't expect an article on every verse of the Bible with a commentary on views expressed from different Christian/Jewish sects. → AA (talk) — 17:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice to someone recreating as redirect to The Michael J. Fox Foundation. Carlossuarez46 02:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fox Foundation

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

Deletion originally proposed as non-notable foundation (not to be confused with The Michael J. Fox Foundation); contested with the addition that it has the status of a university; tagged for sources; tag removed since "Vice Chancellor and Director can be easily contacted for full verification purposes as per external website"; brought here because of WP:V concerns.) Tikiwont 10:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't see how notability is established by the claim of university status - where is the proof of this? If the objector says the "Vice Chancellor and Director can be easily contacted for full verification purposes as per external website", maybe they ought to do that (but we'd still need proper refs per WP:RELY). Googling "Fox Foundation for Combined Science" gives 4 hits, none of which are to multiple, independent, reliable sources which could establish notability. EyeSereneTALK 12:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable sources are produced. The foundation/university's "external website" included as the only source in the article is unconvincing. It is simply a sub-page of one "Ian Windsor's" ISP account at easyweb. The links given on this site for the email addresses of "the Chief Executive's Office", "The Executive Board", "the Director", "the Director of the Fox Foundation, Professor Ian J. Windsor, D.Lit., D.Sc, D.C.L.", and "Vice-Chancellor, Professor Michael Kenchington," all go to the same MSN email address. Delete as unverifiable, nn, probable hoax, unless verifiable and reliable sources are produced. Sarah 12:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Addit: Also, I think if this article is deleted it should be redirected to The Michael J. Fox Foundation because Googling "Fox Foundation" brings up thousands of references to the MJF Foundation. Sarah 05:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable sources are produced (per above comments). I find it very suspicious that such an organization's webpage has a large number of errors of spelling and grammar. Accounting4Taste 16:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a hoax. The organization's home page claims to be representing "The University of Sezibwan" in "the Sovereign Principality of Sezibwan", but it does not appear that such a country exists. JulesH 17:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 18:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abu Muhammad Ordoni

Abu Muhammad Ordoni (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The author does not appear to be notable and no assertions are made within the article. → AA (talk) — 10:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There are around 420 hits but none satisfy WP:BIO#Criteria for notability of people. Most of those hits are related to his book Fatima the Gracious and not on him. → AA (talk) — 13:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
In the event his book is notable, I would not consider it remiss myself to also have an article on the author of said book. This is because the association of a person with a book is sufficiently strong that the notability is deeply connected, even if the amount of information is as minimal as found on the dusk jacket. Whether or not this book is notable enough for inclusion, I don't know, I'm just commenting on the author/book issue. FrozenPurpleCube 21:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It is arguable whether the book would meet the WP:BK criteria. The article has been tagged for notability concerns since January 2007. It'd certainly not be sufficient enough for it's author to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria for a notable creative work. → AA (talk) — 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. --PEAR (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per lack of sources Corpx 03:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources.Proabivouac 10:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable--SefringleTalk 03:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources; does not meet WP:N. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination due to lack of reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 05:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Richard Hoagland. CitiCat ♫ 15:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation that Iapetus is artificial

Speculation that Iapetus is artificial (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An encyclopedia deals with facts, not speculation. Speculative articles by definition fall foul of WP:V and WP:NOR. >Radiant< 09:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Smartass comment What's the difference between "speculation that" and "allegations of"? (Yeah, yeah, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS ...). Nothing valuable to add to this discussion except that this would probably be undue weight if it got merged back to Iapetus (moon); sourcing at present seems a bit week to keep it even at its present location. cab 10:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nomination argument doesn't make any sense. An article about speculation is not the same as a speculative article. This article is not speculating, but (apparently) reporting facts about some people who speculated that Iapetus is artificial. That said, I'm not convinced that the speculation in question is notable enough for an article. --Itub 11:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a hunk of ice and no reputable scientist believes otherwise. Nick mallory 12:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge & Delete but not for the reasons stated above. This is related more to the Moon landing then anything else. No matter what the evidence points at, some people claim it is a hoax. That article has a small paragraph explaining the claims, and a link to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. The difference between the moon and this article is the amount of information the conspiracy theorists have published on the matter. As such, I don't feel this subject requires a seperate article at this time, but that may change in the future as it becomes a bit more notible and people start publishing their theories. Turlo Lomon 12:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable conspiracy theory. Already mentioned in Iapetus - a theory nobody takes seriously does not deserve an article. --Targeman 12:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) PS. I've no idea where I saw the reference, hopefully a temporary eclipse of the brain :-) --Targeman 13:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say a joke theory might well merit an article if there were indeed coverage of the joke to a sufficient degree. Or there is the case of Category:Obsolete scientific theories where the theories were perhaps once taken seriously, but then refuted. In this case, I'm not sure there's enough coverage to merit an article on its own, but there is just barely enough to mention it. briefly. FrozenPurpleCube 21:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with the moon's article. No real need for this to be separate. I just checked the moon article and I can't actually find any reference to Hoagland's theories except for a POV-described external link (POV removed). If there's a theory about Iapetus that is sourced, I see no reason for it not to be mentioned, but it doesn't need it's own article. 23skidoo 12:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Iapetus, if reliable independent sources can be provided to show that this is a view held by some non-trivial section of the population. Otherwise, just delete. -- Arthur Frayn 12:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge A simple Google test on Donald Goldsmith and Tobias Owen indicates that their work is reputable and well published (if off the wall) - it's currently up to it's third edition. Not enough for an independent article IMHO but certainly worth covering in the main one. Pedro |  Chat  14:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteMerge(edited) The speculation is based mostly on the website of Hoagland, who sees things in the photos by the Cassini probe that I do not see. I do not know what the book by Goldsmith and Tobias said in the 2nd edition but they have third edition (2001) of the book [46] with a supporting website which links to their "News from Saturn" [47]. There they attribute the special features of Iapetus to natural processes. The Goldsmith book (3rd ed, 2001) can be searched at Amazon, and on p 383 they say "Iapetus is "the only object in the solar system that we might seriously regard as an alien signpost, a natural object deliberately modified by an advanced civilization to attract our attention and encourage us to decipher its meaning" which is then tied to Arthur Clark's 2001 novel. This conjecture thus has sufficient support to mention in Wikipedia and the best place is in the article on Iapetus, whether the "owners" of that article want it there or not. It should not be a POV fork as it is at present. As a standalone article, much of the other article would have to be duplicated here to provide balance. Edison 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just delete and let it never appear again. It is a non-notable conspiracy/speculation/pseudoscience etc. theory. — JyriL talk 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't the title of the article scream WP:OR and WP:POV? <additional edit> Re-reading the article, the 2nd paragraph, which leads to a source, is documented by a known conspiracy theorist. Personally, I think it's WP:POV if a consipracy theorist is trying to claim a conspiracy on a specific subject...doesn't really count as a source IMO </additional edit> --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, per Edison's comments. --Kurt Shaped Box 17:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: The 2 provided sources are the origination of the "theories". It doesn't appear that anyone has written about the theories. DCEdwards1966 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per speculation that this is NN. --PEAR (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as there does not appear to be any serious scientific interest in this notion. Anything that crank Hoagland publishes can be dismissed outright, and the fact that one other source says something to the effect of "Hey, if anything nearby were artificial, this is it" hardly constitutes a serious theory worth mentioning. If we want to be especially generous we can make very brief mention of this fact on Iapetus (moon), but we have to be careful not to lend this sort of thing undue weight. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Minimal Merge The theory may be untrue, however, it does exist, and I see two news results [48] here. Also mentioned in a book here [49]. 0-5Rz0] Yes, it may be false, it may just be speculation, but since we can establish that there is speculation, then we can note whose speculation it is and without giving it undue weight, mention it to an appropriate degree. It would also be appropriate to add any refutations of that speculation. FrozenPurpleCube 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect/merge, is a tiny article. Main is not too long yet... can merge, if either become majorly long in the future they can be split apart again. Mathmo Talk 00:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You mean it isn't? Merge back into Iapetus Mandsford 00:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Iapetus. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — I don't think this should be merged with the Iapatus article; it's more fiction than science. — RJH (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable speculation. 132.205.44.5 22:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. I would not merge it with Iapetus's article; rather, I would merge it with Hoagland's. This is entirely Hoagland's idea, one of many, many equally insane ideas, and so should not be separated from him, any more than the planet Nibiru can be separated from Zecharia Sitchin. Serendipodous 22:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Hoagland as per Serendipodous. Thsi stuff might have some relevance to the progenitor of the idea, but none to the astronomical object. Deuar 12:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Iapetus. Errant nonsense or not, what matters is whether there are suitable references about the idea. The idea may be crank, but the idea exists. Mere mention of the existence of this idea is not undue weight. The idea does not seem notable enough for its own article. --SmokeyJoe 10:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, reasons for keeping are not based on policy or guidelines. --Coredesat 04:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece timeline

One Piece timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Giant in-universe plot summary. Violates WP:NOT#PLOT. No reliable, verifiable sources to assert its notability. Delete or merge into One Piece. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: its actually a page in need of attention rather then deletation. There is no One Piece wikipedia project set up to organise pages. An attempt was made but dropped due to several reasons. And refs are easily added, if source is the problem, there are sources and refs on the page, and more can EASILY be added. And not much of this is actually plot line, its infomation from a series. Such timelines have been found on pages such as War of the Worlds, which has a timeline (or did have when this was created) on one of its connecting pages. I leave one further comment on the matter: Which is better for wikipedia Deletation of imperfect page or Improvement of an imperfect?

Sometimes... People jump in and are too keen to delete stuff on wikipedia. Angel Emfrbl 16:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - You still have not refuted the fact that this article is nothing other than a plot summary, which violates WP:NOT#PLOT. It's irrelevant how much sources you add. It does not matter unless you can establish notability through using out-of-universe sources. As for the War of the Worlds timeline, read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Trying to appeal using the inclusionist/deletionist argument will not help either. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Okay, you need to stop using overusing policy and guideline shortcuts. Every statement/reason you have made has been explained with a shortcut, and most opposing your view have been opposed with shortcuts. Rather than saying "it should be deleted because it is a plot summary which violates a policy", you should actually support your reasoning by explaining why a "plot summary" is not acceptable. Instead of saying "how many sources you have doesn't matter since they aren't out-of-universe, which is against this policy", you can explain why out-of-universe sources matter. Rebutting all of the points opposing your view with policies and guidelines is against WP:BASH. --Superneoking 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - WP:BASH is an essay, and is not binding. In any case, the rather obvious point is that directly citing policy is relevant because it is the same as a lawyer citing laws to support his case. This article is a clear violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, as it is entirely plot summary and nothing else. That is policy; ergo, it is followed. The importance of out-of-universe sources is to establish the articles in a real-world context, which is required of all Wikipedia articles, as it makes them encyclopedic and not a mere fansite. In its present state, that is what this article is. It makes absolutely no sense to a non-fan of the series and is completely in-universe. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Policies are made to be used in discussions. The whole reason for having AfD is to delete articles that violate our policies. AfD isn't "I dont like this lets delete it." AfD is "This article violates this policy so lets delete it." --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I also agree that it should be kept. I prefer improvment over deletion, but that is just me. Many articles used to be crap, but with hard work, quite a few ended up becoming Featured and Good articles. If you had given up on those articles when they were at their worst, then we wouldn't have them at their best today. The timeline page certainly does need to be improved, but that can't happen if it is gone. As for sources, if you find the actual chapters to be unreliable, then I can't imagine what a good source would be.

And Malevious, if you are going to participate in this debate, please be serious. I respect Sephiroth BCR's opinion because he has clearly stated why he thinks it should be either deleted or merged. You on the other hand sound like you based your decision solely on the desire to delete an article. Please actually take the time to explain why you feel it needs to be deleted. --Superneoking 20:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • No, my opinion is based on the 200 other plot summaries and timelines deleted because they are nothing but plot summaries. See WP:PLOT. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: So why do you think this article needs to be deleted? Your decision shouldn't be based off of the fate of other articles. Should we delete all timelines and plot summaries because 200 other articles were deleted? If that is why you think it needs to be deleted, then you need to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Superneoking 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Pretty much that's the way it is, yes. I'm sure this one in particular was singled out at this time because of other One Piece-related AfDs currently in-process. I'm ambivalent about the plot article issue in general. Its one of Wikipedia's MANY deeply stupid rules, but really, a plot ought to be summarized in the main article - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Sections] in the Anime Project page, which is NOT so stupid. Snarfies 21:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I find this reply to be hypocritical, largely because you retorted to me using WP:BASH, and yet you contradict yourself here by solely using policy to construct an argument. In any case, you still have not refuted WP:NOT#PLOT. This article is entirely plot summary. It has no real-world context or available sources to establish an out-of-universe voice. Other plot summaries that were far better than this article were deleted for the same reason. Go figure. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Part of the appeal of One Piece is the history behind the events, and the details of it that are slowly emerging. I wonder if the article could be justified by the addition of a sourced section discussing what the back history adds to it? Find some reviews or articles talking about One Piece that specifically discuss that aspect of it. That might help shore it up into something that isn't pure plot summary. Of course, you'd actually have to find those sources... Doceirias 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: well if you remove the 22 years section to present, then you have no story plot left. The other stuff, aside from one or two things, are not plot points but just information supplied by the storyline. Most of it has nothing to do with current storyline. If you really want to crib over plot points... Remove the "Oz" bit, births of characters, Norland's bit + skypiea and every from 22 years ago to present. What you'll have left is not plot point. Angel Emfrbl 12:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Er, no, it's all technically plot no matter how much of it there is. My point was that you have to add out of universe references to justify keeping the timeline at all. I thought that might be easier to do with a timeline than a straightforwards plot summary. Basically, adding references and a sourced section discussing the importance of backstory to the series might salvage the article, but at the moment there's no reason not to delete it. Doceirias 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sourced out of universe information and just plot details. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete. I agree that sourced information and real-world context needs to be added; however, I have a slightly more liberal interpretation of what sources and real-world context are acceptable in a case like this. Have any professional manga/anime magazines discussed the backstory or timeline of One Piece? Is there an officially published chronology, like the Star Trek Chronology? Any sources like that might be sufficient to change my !vote to "keep". If it's been covered in reliable sources outside of the fiction itself, that's good enough for me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No secondary sources, no real world context. Jay32183 05:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rokushiki techniques

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

In-universe list of attacks, cruft. No reliable, verifiable sources to confirm its notability. Delete or merge into Cipher Pol. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Hardy

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

Pretty impressive CV, it seems, except that I can not find any reference about it anywhere. The only external link on the page is a blog, which does not even corroborate the article's content. Delete as NN. Schutz 06:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete mainly as it fails WP:NMG, but generally as this is a CV without a shred of supporting evidence. For instance, the groups that Alex spent "a number of years composing and/or performing with" don't acknowledge his input on their pages. Also, the mention of Rent makes me wonder if this is detritus from yesterday's spate of Rentcruft. OBM | blah blah blah 07:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 08:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems to be unverifiable at present; I can't find anything linking this name with the bands mentioned, or the theatre role, or really much of anything else. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article has no reliable outside sources and I could find none in a brief search. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, it doesn't appear that there's anything mergeable. --Coredesat 04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of locations in Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann

List of locations in Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unneeded list of fictional locations in an anime cartoon series. Unnecessary fan information. Jmlk17 06:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Mergen Moppa Mergen Mergen back into Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann Mandsford 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It is far too long to be merged back into the main article and does not offer any real encyclopedic content beyond fancruft (as it is unsourced and filled with OR). So I agree with delete.--十八 04:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep — Caknuck 00:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Furry Tales

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

Not notable, there is but one link to an actual newspaper covering the event, the only other refs are from furry-related news sources Zero sharp 05:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. One article is enough for Wikipedia's standards, and it's being featured on Wikipedia's front page, so apparently it's notable enough for that. This is obviously a non-neutral attempt to delete it because it's furry-related and not for notability. --Coyoty 05:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. WikiFur News is furry, but it's also independent from the creators of the musical, who were not furry. It seems reasonable that we'd be the ones most interested in reporting on it. The article was also syndicated onto Wikinews in modified form by one of their accredited reporters, who presumably decided it was worth noting - I only found out about it several days later. I have about five pages of notes taken during the show that were used in the creation of the news article if you wish me to back up the claims more thoroughly, though that might be more suited for Wikinews' side of things. GreenReaper 05:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. You can't build an encyclopaedia if you always take out things you don't like. From the sounds of it it seems the furry haters are after us again. They never seem to understand that they can't win do they? Robomilk 08:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Kill with fire. 202.67.83.97 05:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I saw the Wiki News articles on it and seems to cite various sources however I think most may be considered violation of WP:POV. Sawblade05 06:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article pretty obviously fails to meet the guidelines under WP:NOTABILITY. It hasn't received significant coverage in independent sources. And in any case, unless they're going on tour, it's a current event and belongs at best in wikinews. 76.88.98.88
  • Keep As the user who help promote this article for "Did You Know?", I feel this article is notable within the context of the furry fandom. ISD 08:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Note that no qualified editors other than the nominator believe deletion is appropriate. --FOo 08:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article seems fairly well written and has two solid sources with plenty of information. It seems to me that this rfd is just a part of the vandalism going on with the article at the moment, rather than a serious request. Chaos386 09:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep, this article is a DYK, very well-written and enough references. I doubt why up till now no admin closes it "speedy keep". @pple 09:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as bloated furcruft with no claim to notability, a whopping total of one media blurb, and a hell of a lot of OR. I agree with 76 up there. "Notable within context" is not appropriate for an entire encyclopedia, just as my grandma's bakery might be notable within the context of my town but not to a general audience. "One article is enough for Wikipedia's standards" is not correct, multiple reliable independent sources are desperately needed. Note to closing admin: "votes" clearly being stacked by "fursecution"-paranoid furry POV-pushers. WP:COI, anyone..? -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 09:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
No need for personal attacks, Wooty. –Ochlophobia
  • Delete without prejudice as the article fails to establish notability per multiple, independent, reliable sources. Per Wooty above, one newspaper article is not enough to meet WP:RS. This is about a production that apparently hasn't been released yet - if it eventually gets wider coverage it can always be recreated. EyeSereneTALK 12:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Please show where WP:RS requires multiple sources. I only see a requirement for "a" source: "Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material." I think the matter will be moot, however, as I expect other sources will be added. --Coyoty 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
From WP:N - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Corpx 16:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
So Wikinews is not a reliable source independent of the subject? GreenReaper 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
No, Wikinews is not a reliable source, no Wiki is a reliable source. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Even though the news article in question is archived and no longer editable by regular users? Being able to cite stories was a key part of setting up Wikinews. GreenReaper 21:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, almost every wiki is a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone with no editorial oversight, so it is not a reliable source Corpx 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It may be furry, which seems to be targeted by a wide crowd here at Wikipedia, but it was made by non-furry directors. SpazKitty 17:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - There's far too much WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. It has sources; if one wasn't enough here's another one. Crystallina 17:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Men's News Daily article is a reprint of the WikiFur article. --Coyoty 18:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Technically, that one is the complete Anthrocon coverage article that was posted solely on Wikinews. It was written significantly by furry fans, but as far as I am aware nobody involved in writing it was involved with Furry Tales (other than actually going there and reporting on it). GreenReaper 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, possible WP:POINT nomination. Article was good enough for a WP:DYK. Passes WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a comment from me (I'm watching the discussion at this point and haven't formulated an opinion on the article as yet): There's nothing to indicate the nominator, who's been around for a year or more and worked on a wide range of topics, was being disruptive with this nom - everyone needs to assume good faith here, please (and that goes for Wooty, above, as well). Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This is true. The nominator's contributions show no bias against furry articles. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. --Coyoty 18:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for a lack of substantial coverage to demonstrate notability. Popularity among the furry fandom does not equate to real-world notability, and a single mention in a local paper does not establish it either - in fact the one article that does qualify as a reliable source indicates that this is largely of interest in connection with Anthrocon. Perhaps it can be merged somewhere, but without sources to establish notability it should not have its own article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Meets all requirements, and is the first of two (that I know of) musicals/plays about furry fandom to be mentioned in the news. –Ochlophobia
    "A page may be speedily kept only if one or more of the following holds:
  1. No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion.
  2. The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption
  3. The nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit.
  4. The page is a policy or guideline."
This nom meets none of the four criteria and therefore speedy keep is not applicable. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 02:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected, and change my choice to Strong Keep as the article still meets all sourcing requirements. –Ochlophobia
  • Comment There is no agenda here. This is a debate about WP policy to establish notability, which a single source cannot do (regardless of how reliable or independent it is). Lack of sourcing seems to be becoming more and more of an issue on WP - which can only be a good thing for the credibility of the encyclopedia. I would regard this as even more important when the source is a newspaper, because it acts to keep down the number of trivial articles that, due to coverage in the local paper, might otherwise be created. Having said that, I'm not claiming that Furry Tales counts as trivia... just that, until additional WP:RS sources turn up, it is not notable enough to have an article to itself. EyeSereneTALK 08:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Anthrocon and redirect for now. This was apparently the "beta" version of the play, presented during this year's convention if I read the article right, and at present it's only received very minimal media coverage - I'm not totally convinced that it meets notability as a standalone article right now, but as a section of the Anthrocon article, I think it'd be fine. When it's completed and has been performed in some way other than a preview, and hopefully gets some more media buzz going, then a standalone article would probably be acceptable. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of portrayals of and references to Bill Gates

List of portrayals of and references to Bill Gates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 05:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. Non-notable cruft. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep This page does assert notability.-- bulletproof 3:16 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I was going to say merge, but this list is long. ←BenB4 06:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Actually, the page doesn't assert notability. There can never be multiple, reliable sources acknowledging each of the dot point mentions (only the tv show/song/game itself). So it's an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Spellcast 07:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Spellcast's points were convincing. –sebi 10:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Bill Gates. --PEAR (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Portrayals of and (especially) references to Bill Gates are too common to be notable. Propaniac 14:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A list of "references to" Bill Gates (ie every time his name is mentioned on a TV show) is not even trying to be maintainable or encyclopedic. Iain99 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete list of loosely associated items - These are all extremely trivial mentions too Corpx 16:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT#DIR. Otto4711 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to a subpage of Talk:Bill Gates, for the reference of future editors who may be able to find some way to re-integrate individual items on this list into the article in chief. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Listing every single reference to Bill Gates has no encyclopedic value. Major studies or documentaries should be covered by the main article. Pax:Vobiscum 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - per ←BenB4. Strongly against deletion, if this goes against it then it at least should be a redirect to preserve the history for future editors to refer to. Mathmo Talk 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It obviously can't be merged back into Bill Gates, who is the 21st Century version of Andrew Carnegie. Gates is, and will continue to be, a pop culture figure of sorts. This is one of the few "in popular culture" articles (I know, they avoided the IPC phrase... good thinking) that illustrates the conflicting views. Did anyone else notice how many folks are afraid to mention Gates by name, and end up saying "Will Bates" or "Henry Gates"? Maybe it's out of fear of Microsoft retribution. Very few well known figures receive that type of deference. Mandsford 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per [User:Pax:Vobiscum|Pax:Vobiscum]]. This is an "in popular culture" list of indiscriminate information under another name. - fchd 06:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a pop culture list and anything that makes Bill Gates a pop culture person should be included in his bio. Carlossuarez46 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Bill Gates. We do this with every other 'List of portrayals in popular culture', and there is no compelling reason to do otherwise in this case. Cynical 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Several such lists have been deleted altogether recently. Unsourced information shouldn't be merged. Propaniac 21:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Cynical --Greatest hits 20:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete listof~1 Fails WP:NOT#DIR and is too many characters long for beloved MS-DOS ;-). JPG-GR 04:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Madigan

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

Individual notable for exactly one incident, which did not make it past specialty media. Calwatch 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable person; her embarrassing stunt at DefCon does not make her notable — reliable sources are necessary, but not sufficient, for notability. --Haemo 05:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Although there are quite a number of reliable sources for this subject, it fails notability guidelines. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete - There were three votes for non-deletion on the article's discussion page -- User:faulknerfan 14:08, 7 August 2007
  • Delete. This is a clear "coatrack" article -- the majority of the content of this biography of a living person consists of a description of a single incident, the importance of which is uncertain. --Metropolitan90 13:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not convinced at all of her notarity. The event seems mildly notable and should be covered in the [defcon] article. Dman727 14:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Slightly weak delete--I think Madigan and the incident may turn out to have long-term ramifications in the field of investigative journalism, but right now that can't be established. Propaniac 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete - The importance of this event in the computer security community can not be dismissed simply becuase NBC or the journalist are not fully disclosing what in fact occurred. Please note verifable references to articles within wired magazine.Suewhite 12:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I dont think there is any "historic notability" to this person either Corpx 16:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is already adequately covered at the DEF CON article, so no merge is necessary. The essay WP:COATRACK describes this sort of article as being purportedly a biography (the coatrack) which is completely obscured by the one big embarassing incident someone wants to publicize (the coats). She seems to be a fine young reporter, and certainly one with perseverance, to stay until the bitter end and try to be "undercover" when she was outed and offered press credentials before entering the conference. If she continues her career and becomes as notable as Mike Wallace an article can be created, and this incident can be incorporated just as negative incidents are included in the Wallace article. Edison 16:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:COATRACK. Rememeber, notability is not temporary. As noted by Edison, if this reporter becomes bona fide WP:N, include this info there. If not, leave it at DEF CON. -- MarcoTolo 17:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, temporary notability, sure, but no long-term notability established. --Yamla 15:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Find a home, there is a topic here - Michelle Madigan v. DefCon: the morality of attempting to hack the hackers. humor:irony? JD 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Already has another home - DEF CON. While a small amount of material (a ref, perhaps) could be ported over there, frankly I'm not sure this "event" needs more than a sentence or two. -- MarcoTolo 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No real notablity. The only claim to notability is a non-notable event at some hacker convention, but since the incident isn't notable, it can't be used as justification for this article existing and thus it should be deleted. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable within a fairly wide community, and it very likely the notabiity will continue. DGG (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close, withdrawn by nominator and there was no deletion request in the first place. May be taken to WP:RM if desired. Non-admin close. cab 06:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State terrorism by Iran

State terrorism by Iran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article's name should be renamed to "Allegations of state terrorism by Iran" or the article should be deleted. Similar discussions have already occured related to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka wherein Allegations of has been deemed the more NPOV term.Balloonman 04:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep another troll nomination.--Southern Texas 04:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It just doesn't seem to be reason to delete this article, if you feel like the page should be moved please discuss it in that page's talk and not here on AfD. Sawblade05 05:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Normally, I would, but this user is not open to other perspectives... and likes calling people trolls. So I figured this would be a better place to get some input as the other articles (namely Allegations of state terrorism by the United States) had their names changed based upon discussion at AFD's. With the current title, this is a NPOV article that should be deleted. Balloonman 05:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I say this based upon this user's comments on the talkpage, his DYK nomination, and my talk page.Balloonman 05:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Close - AfD is not for renaming; do it on the talk page. --Haemo 05:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy close per Haemo. Dbromage 05:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTE: the other user has "retired" from wikipedia, so I went ahead and moved the article. Nominator withdraws nom.Balloonman 05:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alefie Ruiz

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

Non-notable autobiography. -- RHaworth 04:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete; no claim of notability, no indication that any work by her was ever published (except locally). The personal quotes alone indicate that there is probably nothing of interest here. Schutz 07:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable, third party sources. Just a friendstar account and a blogspot I found on Google. Spellcast 07:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - obviously just a kid who wrote an article about herself. The Evil Spartan 22:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep Bad faith nom, obviously notable. ELIMINATORJR 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denver police officer shooting (2005)

Denver police officer shooting (2005) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A localized incident that shouldn't be on wikipedia.--Southern Texas 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete not important enough to be on wikipedia--Southern Texas 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Meets WP:N and WP:V. Possible bad faith nom. Dbromage 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This was an international incident - about as far from "localized" as you can get. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and Close. Per the above 2 votes. The way the AfD makes me question rather or not this vote was made in good faith. Sawblade05 04:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Since the nominator has claimed to have retired from Wikipedia I feel even more inclined with my Speedy Keep and Close vote and this discussion should be closed immediately. Sawblade05 05:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep that's a lot of international wrangling and news coverage for a shooting; with sources, to boot. --Haemo 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Bad faith nom I've nominated an article of this user for merge and another for renaming. This user wishes to delete articles of mine. This is a bad faith nom.Balloonman 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per WP:N, WP:V, and User:Balloonman. --PEAR (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per all above uses. Nom has retired. James Luftan contribs 16:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaolin-Do

Shaolin-Do (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A non-notable article with no realiable sources. There is no need for this article on wikipedia.--Southern Texas 04:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy close. Bad faith nom. Dbromage 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep A google search shows up quite a number of hits for this form of martial arts. Moreover, this webpage provides a detailed coverage of this subject as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete a waste of time--Southern Texas 04:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. This increases suspicion of a bad faith nom. Dbromage 04:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and Close This nom and the one above seems to imply Bad Faith. Sawblade05 04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Since the nominator has claimed to have retired from Wikipedia I feel even more inclined with my Speedy Keep and Close vote and this discussion should be closed immediately. Sawblade05 05:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Since when did a nominator's personal status become a criteria for speedy keep? The very fact that you are attacking the nomination based on the qualities of the nominator is violation of WP:NPA. Stick to content, not contributors. VanTucky (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - well, there's a least one whole book on the subject, and the article is under development, so I say let it get cleaned up and kept.Haemo 05:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Bad faith nom I've nominated an article of this user for merge and another for renaming. This user wishes to delete articles of mine. This is a bad faith nom.Balloonman 04:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC) EDIT Weak Keep as a result of finding some secondary sources mentioned below.Balloonman 15:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As per the reasons I contested the proposed deletion of this article on it's talk page. A search of the newspaper archive site http://nl.newsbank.com for the phrase "Shaolin-do" shows 68 newspaper articles about the subject. While the entire articles are paid access, it's clear from the opening paragraphs of the articles that they are a significant number of non-trivial mentions, with local newspaper articles about Sin The teaching or performing book signings at local bookstores, articles about local Shaolin-do fighting tournaments, articles about local dojo having their rank tests, articles about local martial arts groups that include discussion of Shaolin-do. (That's also only among the newspapers archived on that site.) Shaolin-Do is clearly notable, and reliable sources do exist, even if they aren't cited. That's grounds for cleanup, not deletion. --Wingsandsword 05:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Wings, I would love to see this page kept... and the only thing that keeps me from being a vocal defender is that *I* couldn't find reliable secondary sources. Everything I found was from Shaolin-Do (or affiliated) schools or blogs. If you can find RS, go for it. But you need to be proactive and start now. (The Prod you removed was placed on there a month ago, and Vantucky has been the primary editor on the page since then.) Notability, IMO, is a slam dunk---it's RS that isn't. RS is usually the easier of the two to establish.Balloonman 16:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Appropriate sources do exist. As for sources from Shaolin-Do, like Sin The's book, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves, can be used as sources to an article within certain limitations (for example, their highly contentious/self serving claims of training lineage from the Shaolin Temple are right out, at least as being anything more than a claim). The newspaper sources do exist clearly, and while some may be press releases or the like, a few appeared to be at least a little substantial. They may be archived in a paid-access database, but that doesn't make them not Reliable, just like citing a book you'd have to actually go out and buy instead of looking up on the web is acceptable. Notability is pretty blatant, any kind of franchise/chain with 100+ locations across the US that have been the subject of dozens of newspaper articles over 20+ years would meet that criteria. I don't have a copy of Sin The's book so I can't start citing it, but the sources and notability are there enough to push it over the threshold into Keep. If necessary, reduce the article to a stub of what can be verified quickly and rebuild it from there (which might take a while). For precedent, look at a similar controversial martial arts related AfD, with similar nomination of lack of notability and reliable sources that was repeatedly kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (3rd nomination) --Wingsandsword 17:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There are over 15,000 ghits with Altavista... most of what I can find are affiliated with the schools. Here are some [semi]independent sources (but like any source ultimately reports the oral/written lineage of Shaolin-Do) USA Dojo.com Kickboxing.com, USA Dojo.com has the grandmaster listed in their "Grandmaster's hall of fame." They then indicate that "Grandmaster The' is an internationally known martial artist and has been featured in Black Belt, Inside Karate, Inside Kung Fu, and Masters magazines.", kungfumagazine---requires access, and Master Joe Schaefer quoted. Feel free to use them in the article---I haven't worked on this in forever.Balloonman 04:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While the nom is a poorly-executed argument for deletion, there are still legit reasons to delete. All but one of the ghits mentioning this Mcdojo chain are from the school branches or completely unreliable sources. The hits from the newsbank are almost exclusively for press releases and events listings. Besides, none of them can be properly cited as WP:RS because the actual content is unavailable. The one news mention to be found, from a broadcast TV station is patently trivial. It's a YouTube clip of a story on a foiled attack in a parking garage that uses a instructor as an anecdote about self-defence. It doesn't even mention the chain's name explicitly. The book is authored by the system's founder, which hardly makes it a third party source. Just because this group has a load of schools doesn't mean they meet WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable and independent sources exists. VanTucky (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I somewhat agree with VanTucky! But for different reasons. When Van put a PROD on it a few months ago, I let Van know that I wouldn't oppose it, but would leave it up to others to defend this article. I do believe that the school is clearly Notable (there are virtually no martial arts systems with 100+ schools that acknowledge one person as their head---this makes it notable IMHO. Likewise a system that garners the animosity that can be found on the web demonstrates its notability---non-notable systems don't generate thousands of blogs attacking the system.) The problem is that it doesn't have much in the way of reliable independent sources! This was one of my first articles to write; and knowing what I know now, I question if there are sufficeint reliable sources! For example, the 68 articles above, when I looked at many of the articles I could find for free via Factiva, they were essentially paraphrases of various press releases concerning upcoming tournaments/testing/etc. The problem with Martial Arts systems is most rely upon their own oral/written histories. There are thousands of pages discussing the school---but most are affiliated with the system or blogs attacking it. The problem is, that there is very little in the way of independent sources for Martial arts systems (see my notes on the articles talk pages.) I do, however, disagree with Van's use of the pejorative "McDojo." I won't vote to delete, but in all honesty, I can't support keeping the article.Balloonman 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Per some sources noted above, am going to change stance above to weak keep---but won't bold it here as it might appear as a double vote.Balloonman 15:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Week delete Article is not in a good way, notability contested, & while it may be notable it is as yet unsourced. Needs heavy improvement or deleting, leaving as is is not an option. p.s. the bad faith nom would suggest keeping for a chance to improve but a start needs to be made befor the debate closes --Nate1481( t/c) 09:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481( t/c) 09:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete From the number of schools the article claims, one would expect there to be news coverage. But the only sources cited do not appear to satisfy WP:N's requirement that they be intellectually independent of the subject. The various claims to it being a notable ancient martial arts system appear to lack independent and reliable sources. Edison 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep per wingsandswords. Mathmo Talk 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- 69 Newspaper articles on newslib, at least one book reference, many physical locations teaching the system - Wikipedia is not paper, we have room for the article while it is improved. Oh yeah, and... bad faith nom--Parsifal Hello 05:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I can personally attest to there being many Shaolin-Do training locations. I know of at least 3 in the surrounding counties. Sin The was best known in the 1980s because he had apparently gotten an exclusive contract with the manufacturers of the original wave pool, making his the only sports center in the United States with such a pool. Searching for announcements of the wave pool in local newspaper archives might turn up several of the old locations that existed before Sin went bankrupt. Ehrichweiss 20:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hoodwinked characters#Kirk. — TKD::Talk 10:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kirk (Hoodwinked)

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

Character in the movie Hoodwinked - the short entry would be far more suited in the already-created List of Hoodwinked characters. fuzzy510 04:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge to List of Hoodwinked characters Basically just merge what is on that page to his section on List of Hoodwinked characters as it seems to be the same thing listed twice and seems unnecessary to merit its own article. Sawblade05 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to the list of Hoodwinked characters, and then delete. –sebi 10:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and delete is not an acceptable option due to GFDL compliance. Only merge and redirect. --Stormie 05:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Sawblade05. JPG-GR 04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Michael Bloomberg#Political positions. — TKD::Talk 08:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political positions of Michael Bloomberg

Political positions of Michael Bloomberg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page appears to be WP:OR that relies almost exclusively upon one source ontheissues.org. There is already a page of Muchael Bloomberg, thus I question the need for an article on his politics where the most reliable source is the RollingStone! Personally I agree with Hameo below and think this should be merged with the main article.Balloonman 04:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep This is a waste of everybody's time, that is not the only source used. What is your problem. The article talks about a potential presidential candidate's stances on issues. This is nowhere else on wikipedia and is very helpful--Southern Texas 04:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Then you should have no problem with having others review it to see if they believe that this article is OR or not... and overly reliant upon one source or if they believe that one source is objective enough. Calling somebody a troll and a vandal for nominating your article is clearly not assuming good faith. This article needs to be merged and this page deleted.Balloonman 04:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Haemo convinced me. I don't think any admin intervention is necessary. I will do the merge unless anyone objects.--Southern Texas 03:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Michael Bloomberg#Possible 2008 presidential campaign. Dbromage 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Let me ask you why the articles for the other candidates don't have to do this?
      • Fred Thompson is not a candidate yet, Joe Lieberman is not a candidate, Pat Buchanan is not a candidate but they all have pages like this. This troll nomination needs to be thrown out.--Southern Texas 04:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • This line of reasoning is known as WP:CRAP. It is often a symptom that the other articles need to be deleted, not that the current article needs to be preserved.Balloonman 08:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Don't ever call my contributions that word ever again you anti-semitic troll--Southern Texas 14:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Southern Texas, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Dbromage [Talk]Flag of Australia 01:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Southern, also look up WP:CRAP it is not a reference to your contributions or what you said, it is one of the arguments to avoid. Basically it says, not to use the argument that just because other CRAP exists that this article should be allowed.Balloonman 03:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
                • Sorry about the personal attack. I have read all these rules and I don't think the last one pertains to this article per Savidan.--Southern Texas 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back with Michael Bloomberg. He's not a Presidential Candidate yet; wait until he is. Heck, userfy this until then. We don't need what is basically a nicely-formatted version of "ontheissues" for every possible candidate. --Haemo 04:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Thats it, I retire I'm putting up with this garbage--Southern Texas 05:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure you need to do that; it's not a big deal or anything -- just userfy the page until he announces. --Haemo 05:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I wasn't going to mention WP:CRYSTAL but Haemo makes a valid point. Dbromage 05:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The article is not about the campaign of a candidate but his views on issues. This has its own category. The page should not be merged because it would clutter up the Michael Bloomberg page. The information is sourced and encyclopedic it should not be deleted or merged but have its own article.--Southern Texas 19:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Haemo. Maxamegalon2000 05:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Haemo. --PEAR (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. The article has multiple secondary sources, many footnotes and is extensive. It might make more sense just to keep it. However, if a skillful merge could be performed, I would also support such an action. --Evil1987 16:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Haemo.--JayJasper 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. as per uses above. James Luftan contribs 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and oppose merge - These articles are not just for presidential candidates. Savidan 18:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and ressurect if he decides to run. I was on the fence for a while. I was considering keep since he is a notable politician, but I'm now sure. James Luftan contribs 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with the subject's main article. I see no compelling reason for this to be in a separate article. --ElKevbo 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as per above. Harlowraman 19:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • This should be closed the article has already been merged.--Southern Texas 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep — Caknuck 03:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of IMAX venues

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (2nd nomination)
List of IMAX venues (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a Directory of every single IMAX thatre out there. Since there is already a list of Notable IMAX Theatres on the bottom of the IMAX article I felt that the page I am nominating shouldn't need to be here as it lists all IMAX theatres even though most of them are non notable and is in Violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY.Sawblade05 04:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge notable venues (e.g. first and largest per country) not already in parent article and redirect to IMAX. Dbromage 04:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge If "notable" theaters are merged (assuming it can even be determined that one is more notable than the other), the list on the IMAX page will grow and could call for the creation of a separate article again. What encylopedic purpose does this serve? This is something you expect to find in a tourist pamphlet when you're on vacation. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a directory. I'm sure we wouldn't have a List of McDonald's restaurants. Also, Category:IMAX venues serves a better purpose for this. Spellcast 07:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • This list is grouped in a logical way, the only way to do the same thing with the category is to divide it into dozens of subcats. Kappa 05:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep IMAX cinemas are rare, thus this list should be maintainable, and, I feel, notable. The example of McDonald's restaurants given above is rediculous, as there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of them worldwide, yet only a few hundred of these. TheIslander 09:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Because of their rarity, I feel every IMAX theatre is notable, but there simply isn't enough information to warrent an article on each and every one. By consolidating it all into a list, the section detailing specifics about some locations can be completely split off of the main IMAX article, and put someplace with context. The list is definitely maintainable. There isn't IMAXs on every street corner. For those who keep quoting WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, have you even read the entry? The only possibly appliable portion is section 3.
Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.
The only thing listed is the general location of the theatre. No specific address, no phone numbers, etc. It is broken out by country, with the exception of the United States. Over all, the list seems quite reasonable considering the limited number across the world. It is a useful list. It is something I can definitely picture people wanting to look up. Anyway, I feel the arguments made so far are incorrect.
Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
Once again, IMEX, by their rarity, is equivalent to a museum, or landmark. The amount of information given in the list is appropriate, and enough to give a person a basis to do additional research on the subject. It does not replace the phone book. I feel both of these arguments are incorrect, as the information specifically in violation of this policy is not present in the article. Turlo Lomon 12:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
In response to the two comments above, I don't think that something being rare is extra grounds for keeping an article. Take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs featuring a theremin for example. People who insisted on keeping the article emphasised the rarity of the instrument. But why should the fact that something is rare or less common give it extra grounds for an article? Spellcast 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of what people wanting to keep it emphasised, it seems to me very clear that the reason for deletion, in the end, was that it was a very loosely associated list, which it was. The same certainly cannot be said for this list - to extrapolate the example you cite to this list would mean that this article would have to be titled List of IMAX venues whose screens are exactly X by Y in size, for instance, and that would clearly be nonsense. As it stands, it's fine. TheIslander 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure we would agree that a "List of Nike stores" article would be removed. It seems the only reason this list is being treated differently is because IMAX theaters are not as common. Spellcast 19:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I think this gets to the travel guide level. List of ______ businesses in <city> and almost advertisement for these theaters at a yellow pages level Corpx 16:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- This is plainly a directory of IMAX venues. And lists should only include notable examples of something. Are all of these venues notable enough for their own articles? No. Are most of these venues notable enough for their own articles? No. Most of them are not notable and shouldn't be on any list. Saikokira 19:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, IMAX is scarce. Mathmo Talk 00:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, IMAXes are scarce and notable enough that an overview of the topic can list individual members and remain informative without being overwhelming. Kappa 04:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kappa. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the low number of IMAX theaters, combined with the general notability of IMAX means all of these venues are notable enough to be included in a list. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not a directory; a directory would give addresses and phone numbers of the theaters and a list of the movies currently playing. Every time an IMAX theater opens, it tends to attract significant news coverage; this list thus meets the notability guidelines. DHowell 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete and redirect. If someone wants this information userfied so it can be worked on, feel free to contact me on my user talk page. --Coredesat 04:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thematic motifs of Lost

Thematic motifs of Lost (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page has gotten out of hand. The page started with a few topics but has grown into an unsourced disaster. It is an essay. It is original research. It is not for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thematic motifs of the Matrix series for a similar AFD. -- Wikipedical 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. -- Wikipedical 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Lose it on a mysterious tropical island per nom. Dbromage 04:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR unless somebody wants to trim it down to the 8 lines that are sourced Corpx 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • They're actually stuck in purgat . . . err . . delete. The eight lines that are sourced would not an independent article make. If they're not already covered in the main article, now would be a good time to move them. This is hORrible. Consequentially 06:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have removed the original research. There is enough information left in the article for it to stand alone, IMO. JulesH 10:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or develop a coherent definition of what his article should include that would be verifiable and not original research. I trimmed part of what JulesH left, and I am still not sure about the stub that is left. Ursasapien (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment User:Ursasapien has been involved in an edit war on this article previously, where an anon editor attempted to remove OR and he opposed the removal. [50] [51] [52] [53]. In light of this, and his unexplained apparent reversal of opinion concerning whether or not this information should be included, I'm not sure how much weight should be placed on this delete vote. I also note that there is nothing at all wrong with most of the section he removed from the article which I had left in, and which I have now mostly restored. JulesH 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Please assume good faith. My primary concern, now as always, is to have the best, "freest" encyclopedia on the planet. Therefore, I see absolutely no "unexplained apparent reversal of opinion". I freely admit that I have been involved in a content dispute on this article. In my opinion, the reason behind this dispute is primarily the structure of the article itsself. As it is titled "Thematic motifs of Lost" and the television show is relatively new, there is little secondary source material. For example, Shakespeare's "Hamlet" or "The Great Gatsby" have been thoroughly analyzed by a number of critics who have written books and articles about this analysis. Looking for the "thematic motifs" of Lost, almost of essence, requires original analysis of the primary source (the show itsself). This leads to arguments over which recurring elements are symbolic themes and which recurring elements are just recurring elements. There are too few secondary sources to sustain this article. Leflyman has made a the suggestion that the title be changed to "Themes and motifs of Lost" but this seems to still lead to problems. I do not think there are enough verfiable secondary sources to sustain this article either. In conclusion, my position has not changed. I am an inclusionist and I would love for this article to stay. I just do not see how it can, if the requirement is that every thematic assertion has a verfiable secondary source. Ursasapien (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect I would like to change my vote as per thedemonhog's proposal. Ursasapien (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I am reluctant because of the work that has gone into this page, but that is not what this is about, and the article is well summarized in the main Lost article. --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Lost (TV series)#Thematic motifs: I like how the article has been trimmed down so that everything points to secondary sources; however, the article is now so short that there is not enough information to merit a full article. I'm changing my vote because this will preserve the talk page – on which there has been much debate – and will also preserve the current page in history so that if someone wants to seriously restart the page, they will have a good start. --thedemonhog talk • edits 06:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've washed my hands of this one --Qwerty7412369 03:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per thedemonhog. •97198 talk 07:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wizard Of Oz - Television Airdates

Wizard Of Oz - Television Airdates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory. This article merely lists showings of the Wizard of Oz on television, without listing any additional commentary. -- Wikipedical 03:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 03:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and possibly copyvio. Merge and cite additional info about first television broadcast not already in parent article. Dbromage 04:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom It already appears to be a copy of a list from TV Guide and really it doesn't have any Encyclopedic merit for notability. Sawblade05 04:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails entirely to answer the "so what?" question. There are any number of movies which are shown regularly on television; I see no reason that screenings of The Wizard of Oz are noteworthy. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Spellcast 07:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, probably the most outrageous example of fancruft I have ever come across. Who but the extremest of Oz freaks gives a §#!+ what time it was aired in 1959??? --Targeman 12:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per above, and I am surprised they missed all the times I watched my DvD with kids. Turlo Lomon 12:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ding dong DELETE - Amen, Targeman. I'm surprised anybody has been keeping track of this sort of thing to begin with. Follow the yellow brick road and delete this. --Hnsampat 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This is ridiculous, WP is not a TV Guide or directory or whatever. --JForget 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I could swear there was a different article on the history of this film on TV, It was well sourced and a prety good article. No other film has anything like the history of TV broadcasts this one has. What happened to it? Edison 02:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The other article, The Wizard of Oz on television, adequately covers the broadcast history. This is too much information. Edison 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to no evidence of notability established by nontrivial coverage in independent reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 08:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TCPDF

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

Non-notable software product. The Evil Spartan 18:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Weak Keep Neutral ..if the statement "already included in popular PHP applications" is in fact true (ideally needs references). If so, then that in itself shows it has achieved some level of notability, even if relatively small. Bungle44 21:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm changing to a neutral stance after realising that the software developer is in fact the article creator. Not only this, but it seems that several months back they had a habit of promoting their website through external link spamming (essentially, this could be regarded the same). It doesn't change the fact whether or not this particular piece of software warrants an article, but given the vanity of it and prior history of the creator I don't really think I could support. Because of recognition in high-profile software, I can't support deletion either. Bungle44 19:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep TCPDF is bundled with the major PHP applications and used by thousands important websites all around the world.

I think that a simple Google search is enough to see the TCPDF popularity, anyway some references follows:

- phpMyAdmin (3,300,736 downloads in 2006): http://www.phpmyadmin.net/old-stuff/ChangeLogs/ChangeLog-2006
- Joomla http://www.joomla.org/component/option,com_jd-wp/Itemid,105/p,70/
- Drupal (600,000 downloads from May 2006 to April 2007) http://drupal.org/project/pdfview
- Moodle (29,421 registered sites, 12,226,834 users) http://phpdocs.moodle.org/moodlecore/_lib---pdflib.php.html
- Xoops http://www.xoopsgreece.gr/modules/PDdownloads/singlefile.php?cid=5&lid=90
- EuroCV http://www.eurocv.eu

Nicolaasuni 11:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete It might be used in a lot of programs, but its lacking coverage from independent sources. There are lots and lots of common classes that are used by lots of apps, but I dont think WP should have an article on them unless they're "notable" Corpx 04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep TCPDF is very important because it is currently used by the most part of PHP world (millions of users per day). Reading comments on the forums, TCPDF seems to be the only practical library that allows to create UTF-8 PDF without installing external PHP extensions. I notice that someone is also working to integrate TCPDF with Mediawiki and wikipedia (http://wiki.splitbrain.org/users:wflamme:pdfex) Markblackstone 09:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am slightly concerned if the comment above has been posted by the same person who posted the first keep arguement, who also happens to be the article creator. Looking at this person's contributions (account went strait into this article/afd), similar name format & style of vocabulary, it seems likely this account has been setup specially to aid support in this AfD. Sockpuppet of Nicolaasuni? Bungle44 09:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no independent sources given. If the software is relevant in the context of PHP, then it might be worth a note on the PHP article, or similar. --B. Wolterding 12:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, The previous affirmation is clearly false, I've personally indicated several independent sources and articles about TCPDF and, in any case, you can make a simple google search to see that TCPDF is cited in 87,300 pages or take a look at sourceforge statistics. Please also note that on february 2007 the same article was posted and edited by several authors on the spanish version of Wikipedia (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCPDF). Another independent source for TCPDF is: [UTF-8 Survival Guide]

Nicolaasuni 08:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Reply: What we need for notability are independent reliable sources with substantial coverage of the subject. Counting of Google hits is not sufficient. Many of those hits are forum posts, blogs, etc. which are not reliable as self-published sources. Also, the links you posted above do not contain substantial coverage of the subject, they just briefly mention it. Last but not least, the existence of articles on other Wikipedias does not justify an article on this Wikipedia; Wikipedia itself is a wiki and not a reliable source. --B. Wolterding 14:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and B. Wolterding possible WP:COI Harlowraman 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jay_Black_(comedian)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jay Black (comedian)
Jay_Black_(comedian) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO Tendancer 03:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've kept an eye on this article for a little while after someone placed this individual under "Notable Alumni" at the College of New Jersey article. Over time the content has not improved, and I suspect it's simply due a dearth of verifiable published content. Per WP:BIO, this biographical article does not fit any of the following criteria:

  • Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
    • With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
    • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
    • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
    • See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.
    • See WP:PORNBIO for guidelines on erotic entertainers
  • Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 04:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The most notable non-trivial mention I could find was this source. There were other sources, but they were just trivial mentions like performance dates. Spellcast 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO unless sources are priovided. Nuttah68 08:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of OpenDocument and Office Open XML licensing

Comparison of OpenDocument and Office Open XML licensing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

POV issue and redudant of Office Open XML and OpenDocument. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of OpenDocument and Office Open XML formats.

  • Delete and merge anything not already in individual articles. This article would be great if you wanted a place for POV and reverts war. :D KTC 03:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Clubjuggle 03:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep — Caknuck 03:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hanjian

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

This unsourced article is a personal essay. The very topic of the article is unencyclopedic. Perhaps it can go to the Wikitionary. K.C. Tang 03:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems encyclopedic as it goes well beyond a mere definition. Well researched by many contributors over nearly two years but needs citations. A candidate for cleanup rather than deletion. Dbromage 03:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Perogatory terms are notable if they define the history and the reason why they are considered perogatory this article seems to establish those things. it just needs sourcing. Deathawk 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Many of the articles under the category "Pejorative terms for people" are problematic. We should always assume good faith, but sometimes reading those articles we can't help wondering what the point is to create (and keep) such unsourced ramblings. Btw, I can't agree the article in question is "well researched". I can only hope that the admins could look at this type of article more carefully.--K.C. Tang 02:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is about an encyclopedic topic, as the term references a specific type of traitor. Ngchen 17:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete per WP:V, WP:BAND. While some people point out that this band may have substantial coverage somewhere, right now it has zero sources and meets WP:CSD#A7. It may be recreated once someone actually bothers to find and cite these sources. Sandstein 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avulsed (band)

Avulsed (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Image:Avulsed.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)
Image:AvulsedLogo.gif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Non notable and unreferenced and large portion of the text was copyright violation from [54] Harlowraman 02:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable sources at all. I think this can qualify for an A7. Spellcast 19:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a lot of Google results for these guys in European circles; I note there are articles on them in both the .de and .fr Wikis, and their main record label, Repulse Records (now defunct), also has an article on .fr, .de and the Polish Wiki. Not sure if that indicates notability or not; I can't read the damn things. Neutral with a hope that someone who speaks those languages can bring some light to the matter. If Repulse is a big enough indie label, their three albums on it would meet WP:MUSIC, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. J Readings 23:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not entirely sure what constitutes RS in the metal world, but just searching on one of their albums (Yearning for the Grotesque), I've found reviews[55][56] [57][58][59], an interview[60], and multiple articles on Vampire-Magazine[61], and that's just from a page or so of Google results. Surely in this great mass (and there's many more) some of them would count as reliable sources. Their official site has an extensive news section that mentions many articles and reviews over the years, amid their concert dates and band goings-on.[62] --Groggy Dice T | C 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If you a search on death metal and Spain you will see that they are notable. As Groggy Dice stated Death Metal isn't exactly mainstream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmm6f488 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 August 2007
  • Delete as COPYVIO. --Aarktica 23:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: G12 as copyvio. --Kinu t/c 05:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ravishankar Maharaj

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

Entire article Copyright violation from [63] Harlowraman 02:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Meets all the parameters for blatant copyright infringement. Tagged for speedy. Dbromage 03:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 03:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logan School

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

no assertion of notability, and my tags that this article reads like an advert are repeatedly removed without anything being changed. It's a pretty article, but it's unnotable poorly sourced advert Chris 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Chris 03:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of notability, + the mindless pablum ra-ra from the school's website. Eusebeus 22:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There's an advertising tag on the top of the story, which is the initial way to deal with rah-rah, not deletion. Noroton 13:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and that keeps getting removed without being dealt with, and should remain until it is, if this article survives. Chris 21:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notability shouldn't need to be asserted any more for a high school than for a village, hamlet, town or "census designated" hole in the wall, which are all kept by current practice. All high schools are notable, as I argue here although I'm sure our closing admin overlord will ignore my reasoning, not that there's anything wrong with our administrator overlords, of course. I was under the impression it was a high school. Apparently not. No opinion (which, in the philosophies of some closing admins, could be used to craft some kind of consensus). Noroton 13:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (edited Noroton 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
  • Keep as notable middle school, see Ghits: [64] (1st 9 are pretty good, but the 10th is this WP article), and students received an award from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): [65]. Article needs to cut out the junk and cruft. Bearian 15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not state what the award is for, and upon checking the source, it's not actually for any academic achievement, it's a "Spirit Award" for good sportsmanship. The article states that it was given "for their work," implying that it was for something educational, which is false. The remaining half of the article is about some fundraising project and completely unencyclopedic. Delete as advertising and a peacock article. Hersfold (talk/work) 03:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I normally don't vote to keep elementary and middle schools but a private school for gifted children that just raised $5 million and has its own 13.5 acre campus seems "worthy of note" to me. -- DS1953 talk 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fund raising is great, but its still lacking coverage from reliable sources Corpx 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Not a garden-variety elementary or middle school, but notable as a school with a unique educational approach. True, the article is not well-written and does not assert its topic's notability, but those shortcomings can be fixed with additional sources and rewriting.--orlady 17:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per orlady and DS. Mathmo Talk 00:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Notability is not currently established. It may be that notability could be established with some reliable sources, but they don't seem to have a particularly unique approach (experiental learning has a history of well over 100 years) and there's no reason given in the article to believe this school really stands out. --Yamla 15:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Article makes claims of notability supported independently. Additional sources should be added to expand teh article. Alansohn 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. It is very difficult for a middle school to be notable. Awards are not one of them unless it is a recognizable, notable achivement. This is but one of thousands around the world; education should be the focus and not the building where students attend. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability.--Húsönd 01:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I spent some time researching this school. I found it listed (with favorable reviews) in a directory of schools for gifted children (those Wikipedians who think that all K-8 schools are alike should investigate the number of schools for the gifted -- these types of schools are rare). I found other info about the school in other sources, and I found a journal article about a research study in which Logan students were key participants. All this is now reflected in the article, along with the pre-existing information about the school's having raised $5 million in donations.--orlady 04:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacks notability. References about previous notability for the staff don't mean this school is notable. Directory lists also don't make it notable nor do mentions in an article without substantial coverage. Being a school for the gifted done not make notability nor does making lists. Vegaswikian 05:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Having your advert tags removed is not grounds for deletion. When placing these tags, you need to explain exactly what you are objecting to on the talk page, otherwise editors don't know how to address it. Dhaluza 10:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. No one has provided examples of concrete reliable sources that provide non-trivial, independent coverage, or anything more than a "weak keep" recommendation. No prejudice against re-creation if notability can later be established from reliable sources, but, right now, no one has shown or strongly argued that they exist. — TKD::Talk 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Bogaert

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

Appears to be a single contestant from Eurovision who faired decently, but not exceptionally. I could be wrong - I know little to nothing of the contest. However, I don't believe this person is notable in and of himself. The Evil Spartan 18:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep and cleanup because Google has about 3500 hits, some of which are potential sources. The article suffers from inappropriate tone and peacock terms ("Music is my life!" etc.). She is not notable for her role in Eurovision, but she may be notable for other performances. Shalom Hello 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. According to her IMDB page, she came in 20th in the Eurovision contest about 7 years ago. The song she sang peaked at 98 on the Swiss charts. She hasn't even done an album of note yet.--Sethacus 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Shalom. Bearian 21:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete unless sources giving significant coverage (not google hits) are found Corpx 04:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Shalom. Mathmo Talk 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per Shalom Harlowraman 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per Corpx. --Aarktica 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC or of the reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Fails WP:V. TerriersFan 01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Close, I initially put this up for AfD because I didn't think the article stood a chance -- even if it were rewritten from scratch it would have failed WP:RS. But then, guess what? I found sources! Article will be rewritten from scratch, so no need to delete it. Self-closure by non-admin. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brighton Mall

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Brighton Mall Articles for deletion/Brighton Mall (2nd nomination)
Brighton Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely bollocks page on a real mall. I know that the information on this page is total nonsense, but a G1 speedy was overturned. The page's author, who was indefinitely blocked, has a habit of creating nonsense mall pages.

Note: This page was previously deleted in AfD, but G6 doesn't apply since the previous version was totally different content. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 03:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC) non-admin closure

[edit] Kyoko Chan Cox

Kyoko Chan Cox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The subject does not seem to meet the Wikipedia Guidelines for Notability. Her main claim to fame seems to be that she is the daughter of Yoko Ono. Being related to a famous person does not make one famous. NatureBoyMD 02:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Yoko Ono. Masaruemoto 02:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 11:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Her main claim to fame seems to be that she is the daughter of Yoko Ono. If she has any other claim, I can't detect it. Don't merge; just zap and redirect. -- Hoary 11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per others above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: To me, the demand to "merge" implies that there's some mergeworthy content. Do I understand this right; and if so, what's the mergeworthy content here? All I see is dribs and drabs about the private life of somebody who's neither notable nor a celeb. -- Hoary 06:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Personally, I don't care about the topic at all, but if someone who does care thinks there's something worth merging, that's fine with me. And I'm not "demanding" anything. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • "Demand" wasn't well chosen. However, a better alternative isn't obvious: "Suggestion" seems too weak; I'd have said "vote", but then we're often reminded that AfDs aren't votes. -- Hoary 07:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Yoko Ono - I'm going with WP:BLP1E on this one. Kyoko Chan Cox is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about the larger subject Yoko Ono. There are WP:RS material on Cox (see below), but these mostly are in relation to events of Yoko Ono's life. Cox otherwise remains of essentially low profile. The reliable sources only cover the Kyoko Chan Cox in the context of the 1972 Yoko child custody event, Yoko's 1986 public letter to Cox, and Cox's potential to inherit 200M from Yoko. These three events can be covered in the Yoko Ono article. Here is what I found:
    • New York Times Abstracts. (February 21, 1972) Domestic Relations Ct, Houston, will rule Mar 3 on temporary custody of 9-yr-old girl K Cox. Page 53
    • AP (January 26, 1986) Magazine Reports Word Of Yoko Ono's 'Long-Lost' Daughter. Section: Domestic News
    • Churcher, Sharon. (January 7, 2001) Mail on Sunday The little girl who will inherit half of John Lennon's 400M fortune; First meeting between Yoko Ono and granddaughter her family refused to let her see.
    • Bessonette, Colin. (June 14, 2002) Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Q & A (answering 'What ever happened to Yoko Ono's daughter?') Section: Metro News; page D2.
    • Barton, David. (April 23, 2003) Chicago Sun Times. Lennon auction tapes trace Kyoko custody trip. Page 68.
-- Jreferee (Talk) 04:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Yoko Ono as above. Harlowraman 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect for falling short of WP:BIO. --Aarktica 21:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete view. I really don't like the concept of merging/redirecting non-notable relatives into the articles of other notable people. What is the policy here? Basically, this person aint notable so the article should go. Bridgeplayer 23:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with the option to traswiki to FIRSTWiki per Tckma — Caknuck 03:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FRC 1719

FRC 1719 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable highschool robot building team. Makes NO assertions of notability, lack of sources, etc. May be a vanity page. DurinsBane87 02:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of people known by more than one given name (in combination)

List of people known by more than one given name (in combination) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics and WP:NOT#IINFO based on the most trivial criterion. Pointless and silly list-making. Masaruemoto 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:IINFO. Totally trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a totally unmaintainable, not to mention trivial list. Crystallina 02:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unmaintainable and trivial, as stated by the nom, TenPound and Crystallina. Flyguy649 talk contribs 07:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, extreme listcruft. --Targeman 12:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is indiscriminate trivia & listcruft to the max. Spellcast 20:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Alright, it looks like a parlor game, but all of the people have blue-links; they're not all criminals, surprisingly. Most people have their full names listed only because there is the possibility of confusion with another person with the same name. There's a story behind every name on the list. Mandsford 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Since some people are always called by three names. Who would recognize Lee Oswald, Edgar Burroughs, Ralph Emerson, Hans Anderson, Alexander Bell, John Booth, George Carver, Arthur Doyle, William Hearst, Sarah Gellar, James Jones, Martin King, Mary Moore, Edgar Poe, George Shaw, or Frank Wright? A Google or other test would show that many people are much more commonly referred to with more than first and last name. Edison 02:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The points made by Mandsford and Edison (that these are real people, that there is a story behind every name, and that many people are always called by 3 names) are undeniably true, but this list is trivial. I can't think why anyone would refer to such a list, other than for a parlor game. --orlady 04:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright, it's going to be deleted, but Edison summed it up better than I did. George Carver, Mary Moore and Martin King don't ring any bells, although they sound a buzzer to say, "that's not their full name". On the other hand, the only person who ever said "George Walker Bush" was his mom, Barbara, when she was upset with him. I used to wonder why notorious criminals were always listed by their full names... it's because there have been people named Lee Oswald, John Booth, etc. There's actually the possibility that this could become more than trivia, although it would be a major undertaking to explain the reason for the triple name. I'm saving this one to study sometime, as the author has an interesting idea. Mandsford 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Birlew

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

Non-notable subject; PROD was used, but removed by the article creator. GlassCobra 01:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete – Two sources cited are from the subjects own web site Piece is self-promotional! Shoessss |  Chat  02:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep based on this, this and this Corpx 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
CommentI am sorry a mother’s saying; “…."His mother adored him, and now I adore him,” Does not constitute notability. Shoessss |  Chat  03:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment The subject of the article would like it removed. Does that have any weight? GlassCobra 20:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
YES - Now can be closed as Speedy DeleteShoessss |  Chat  10:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
COMMENT - The subject of the article is not confirmed to be DanBirlew. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not sufficient WP:RS sources; does not meet WP:RS. Note to closer - With the passage of six days since this AfD was listed, I think it safe to close this AfD now. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of actors receiving six or more Academy Award nominations

List of actors receiving six or more Academy Award nominations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Arbitrary inclusion criteria; there is no reason why this isn't five or more Academy Award nominations or seven or more Academy Award nominations, other than the creator of this list has arbitrarily chosen that number. Also nominating the related lists; Golden Globe Award statistics: Actors receiving 7 or more nominations for film, List of people receiving three or more Academy Award directing nominations, List of films receiving three or more acting Academy Award nominations, List of films receiving ten or more Academy Award nominations, List of actors receiving two or more Academy Awards, List of films receiving two or more acting Academy Awards, and List of people receiving five or more Academy Awards.

Many similar and related lists have recently been deleted for the same reasons, ie; List of actors receiving six or more BAFTA Film Award nominations (AFD), List of films receiving six or more Golden Globe Award nominations, List of film actors receiving five or more Golden Globe Award nominations, List of film directors receiving three or more Golden Globe Award nominations, List of films receiving three or more Golden Globe Awards, List of actors receiving two or more BAFTA Film Awards, List of films receiving the three main Golden Globe Awards per category, List of films receiving six or more BAFTA Film Awards, List of films receiving three or more acting BAFTA Film Award nominations, List of films receiving two or more acting BAFTA Film Awards, List of films receiving ten or more BAFTA Film Award nominations, List of films receiving two or more acting Golden Globe Awards, List of people receiving ten or more Golden Globe Award nominations, List of people receiving three or more Directors Guild of America Award nominations, List of films receiving three or more Screen Actors Guild Award nominations, List of people receiving four or more Screen Actors Guild Award nominations, List of film actors receiving two or more Screen Actors Guild Awards, and List of films receiving the Golden Globe Award "Big Five". Masaruemoto 00:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - Arbitrary criteria for inclusion. Corpx 01:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as arbitrary inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Holy Fucking SHIT!! That many other articles?!?!?! This list is purely trivial, and serves no wiki-purpose. Delete 'em all. James Luftan contribs 02:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom, unless the "N or more" is changed to a large prime. Dbromage 05:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all Damn, that's what I call arbitrary criteria. Can the closing administrator please delete these articles and throw away the undelete button? Category:Academy Award winners is adequate enough. Spellcast 07:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. --Targeman 12:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above.--JForget 00:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all: Pure listcruft and unmaintainable. Add a List of left-handed people who drive a red car and have received at least four and a hald Academy Awards Tomj 00:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Alright, it looks like a parlor game, but all of the people have blue-links; they're not all criminals, surprisingly. Most people have their full names listed only because there is the possibility of confusion with another person with the same name. There's a story behind every name on the list. Mandsford 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Wrong debate. Sorry.
    • LOL and um Delete per above Balloonman 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by MZMcBride. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Western Golf Alliance

Western Golf Alliance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not sufficiently notable. About the WGA 650l2520 01:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedily deleted by MZMcBride. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucas wynne

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

This new entertainer does not seem to have achieved any level of real notability outside of his immediate area. MatthewUND(talk) 01:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per lack of sources attesting notability Corpx 01:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete — Caknuck 03:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of powers in City of Heroes and City of Villains

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Indrian 00:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't reach this opinion lightly because the article has been heavily edited and contains useful information for gamers. However, I believe the nominator is right: the article is a game guide, lacking general relevance, and against the style demanded by Wikipedia:Attribution. Shalom Hello 01:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per hundreds of articles with all sorts of technical information already in existence. -- Naruttebayo 01:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Can you give some examples? --Phirazo 02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keeep provided article expanded to incorporate invormation relating to how powers affect the game (eg in terms of plot device etc) rather than simply listing Guycalledryan 01:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE - This is exactly the stuff you'd find in a game guide and all the info is either WP:OR or straight from a game guide. Corpx 01:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. The fact that other articles like this exist is not a compelling argument for inclusion. Lists of units, power, weapons or what-have-you have very little encyclopedic merit and generally are full of unsourced original research as well; as this one is. --Haemo 01:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If you see articles with this much technical and game guide material, fix them. It's against policy. Don't use them as excuses. DurinsBane87 02:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Pure game guide. Someone put a lot of work into this though, perhaps it could be transwikied elsewhere? --Phirazo 02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is pretty much pure game guide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Good example of WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. Spellcast 20:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, due to copyright violations. — David Fuchs (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abysmal Crucifix

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

Not notable band --DimaG 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This nomination was broken; I have fixed it by creating this discussion page. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How good does a hoax have to be before it becomes notable? ELIMINATORJR 00:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I have no stock in this article but precedent shows that albums with 'hot singles' are usually notable enough to be kept. -- Naruttebayo 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Guess what? You just got had by a hoax. That's what happens when you're forced to judge based on the content of the article, when the article has no reliable sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 00:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Spam Research Group

Anti-Spam Research Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Possibly non-notable. You decide. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, for now. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannick Dias Pupo

Yannick Dias Pupo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

article recreated shortly after prod expired, someone wrote on the talk page "I feel like this article should remain. Technically, it doesn't meet notability requirements at this time. But he's received a kit number for a top Portuguese club and will make the final team. Then he will soon appear in a game and will be notable as soon as this happens. Given the imminent circumstances and the fact that a decent stub exists to answer any questions, I think it should probably remain. matt91486 16:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)" My understanding has always been, esp. in similar articles I have written, that technically not meeting notability requirements trumps potential of notability and when said notability is reached, the article can be recreated. I feel that should be held in this case. Otherwise, I should recreate the articles of mine that have been deleted and say they should stay because Yannick got to stay on potential of notability, so the same can be said for others.... Postcard Cathy 00:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 00:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Archive and move back into mainspace once notability established Guycalledryan 01:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete until actual evidence of notability is available. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MastCell Talk 02:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. This man is currently listed as a team member in Sporting Clube de Portugal. Here is his entry at the club's web site. It does say he has not played any games for them yet. If the convention is that you're not notable until you've played, then I'll go along with that. However, note that every other current player at that club is blue-linked. EdJohnston 04:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Hasn't played a match in a fully-professional league. Number 57 08:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:BIO does state that players who are recognised first team squad members (which he appears to be) at major clubs (which Sporting undoubtedly is) can have an article. Also, can anyone read enough Portuguese to work out if this, this, this, this and this qualify as reliable sources? If they do then he passes WP:N, which is the main decider of notability and therefore surely renders whether he's actually played or not irrelevant......? ChrisTheDude 08:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Players have been kept in the past on the basis of having a squad number at a club where the rest of the players have articles. On this basis, I think this article should be kept unless the player is released, in which case it should be deleted. Dave101→talk  10:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a close call. The language at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability would allow players who have not yet played be notable if most other players at the same club have articles: Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. Recently I was at another AfD where the decision was to *exclude* the new player in a similar situation. EdJohnston 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I understand what is said by "Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles." but to be fair, what we have here is not an encyclopedic article, just a single sentence of 20+ words. Such limited content would be more appropriate on the club page perhaps, I feel, until such time as there is something more substantive about which to write, which will presumably come if and when he does make an appearance in a fully professional league. Consequently I lean to the side of delete. --Malcolmxl5 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hesitant Keep First, he was previously signed for Corinthians, one of the biggest clubs in Brazil. If he played for them, that in itself would clearly qualify him for an entry. Second, could the page not be edited to say that he has yet to play in a first team match? Third, if you check WP entries on him in other languages, you can see there are multiple entries, somewhat different to the English one - perhaps a linguist could improve this entry by looking at them? Finally, isn't it notable that he's signed for Sporting, even if he hasn't yet played a full professional match? --Greatest hits 06:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I can't talk about soccer but I can talk about baseball. Let's say this was a guy that was signed to the Yankees or Red Sox in 2004. If the guy never played a game in his life, was the catcher in the bullpen and/or maybe only was a pinch hitter twice while signed, would you say he was notable enough to be on wiki simply because he was on the Yankees or Red Sox? I say no way. Notability is what you do, not who you are affiliated with. Postcard Cathy 06:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
To continue the baseball/Red Sox analogy, it would be more accurate to say that this guy (who is, after all, only 19) is more like a hot prospect who has been added to the club's "expanded roster" ready for his big league debut, like someone like, say, George Kottaras, who has an article...... ChrisTheDude 07:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
But being a hot prospect does not equal notability in my book. Which is why I prod'd him in the first place. Wait until he makes it. He may not make it. How many athletes had good prospects and failed to live up to the hype? If and when he makes it, the article can be recreated. In the meantime, the team's article can mention him. Cathy
I know nothing about baseball :) but Cathy's analogy strikes me as a fairly good one. Pupo appears to have played for Corinthians youth team and not for the first team. There are exceptions of course but, per WP:BIO, we do not have articles on players who have never made an appearance in a fully professional league. This chap has not yet done so and given the brevity of his article, it seems clear that he is not otherwise notable and thus not an exception to the rule. --Malcolmxl5 09:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete crystal ball, non-notable player with no proven professional appearance with Sporting's first team. --Angelo 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nom), and include secondary sources provided in this debate. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 01:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Commons

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

Delete as vanity. This article does not cite a single secondary source. It does not assert notability. If this were not Wikipedia, we wouldn't have this article. When this does not cite any sources, it needs to be deleted, or moved to the project namespace. I hesitated with A7, but the deletion is probably too controversial for that. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • strong keep. Are you kidding? Nothing wrong with keeping this page. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I am not kidding. And remember that AfD is not a vote. Please provide an argument with your comment. I currently do not know why you want to keep this page. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • There's no other place to put the page. The information isn't duplicated anywhere else, and it's on a clearly notable topic. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Why is the topic "clearly notable"? The article does not currently establish notability. Not even one secondary source is cited. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep unless someone can identify a more appropriate place in the Wiki-world to place the apparently useful and important information in this article. If this duplicates similar info somewhere else in Wikipedia I would reconsider. (edited to add:) I added a reference from "International News on Fats, Oils, and Related Materials (inform)" a journal published by the American Oil Chemists Society, a reliable and independent publication which contains substantial coverage of Wikimedia Commons. This is one step towards satisfying the formal requirements of WP:N Edison 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)(edited Edison 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
    • A more appropriate place would be the project namespace. Your keep comment does not address the notability concerns I raised. We shouldn't keep articles just because they have an affiliation with Wikipedia. This is vanity. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 00:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • And that the information is "useful" is not a reason to keep the article, either. An FAQ on "how to avoid common mistakes when having a date with someone" is useful, but not encyclopaedic. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 00:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article needs expansion and sourcing, but the subject is without a doubt notable. Atropos 00:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. First off, while it isn't a typically valid argument, Wikimedia Commons definitely passes the sniff test. I'll go out on a limb and say by the 69M results there that it passes WP:N. Secondly, there are secondary sources out there; they're easily found using a Google News search, so it passes WP:V. Finally, articles being of somewhat poor quality isn't a reason for deletion, the last time I checked. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but we can't just keep an article without a single secondary source, no matter how notable the subject is deemed to be. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 00:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • True, but we can ADD sources to it. If the article needs more sources, you're always welcome to fix it yourself instead of disrupting Wikipedia over it. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I am, in fact, not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I merely think that articles about ourselves should be held to the same standards as other articles; this one doesn't cite a single secondary source, which is usually a reason for deletion. The burden of providing sources lies not on me. If you want to keep this article, source it. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Sigh. It's obvious to me that the only other result you could get was that this should be merged to a section of the foundation's article, as this site is clearly notable, and as an official aspect of the collective banner of Wikipedia, this warrants coverage to a certain extent. Even if nobody elsewhere even mentioned it (which isn't the case at all anyway, as even the most trivial of searches will show), it'd still be important to document as an aspect of Wikipedia. I am concerned that this nomination is misguided, do you not realize there are other options? This isn't horribly disruptive, but I an doubtful you made a good choice here. FrozenPurpleCube 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

    • You do not address my concern. The article has not even one single source cited, which is normally a reason for deletion. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 01:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Not citing a source is a reason to add {{unreferenced}} or other tags to an article. If that doesn't work, perhaps you try to get people's attention elsewhere. It's not a reason to delete on its own, not when it's quite apparent that there are actually sources. It doesn't take much looking at all. I'm sorry you don't recognize that your choice of nomination was ill-considered, but I think you really need to step back and see if your actions were really the best decision. If you want to improve Wikipedia articles, there are better ways. FrozenPurpleCube 01:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote. Notwithstanding, as a widely used repository of photos, Wikimedia Commons seems as notable as the popular media sharing website Flickr. Shalom Hello 01:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even disregarding the consensus of prior AfDs, the Commons has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources. A Google News archive search reveals plenty of articles of which the Commons and its mission are the primary subject. --Krimpet 01:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Melsaran/Salaskan needs to note that the article now has one secondary source, which I added, and that another editor pointed out several other secondary sources, which can be added to improve the sourcing of the article. It can take a little while to look them over and see the best place to add them, and to see what revisions in the article they may suggest. But if the sources are noted here or in the talk page of the article, even without being added as inline refs, the argument that the subject in not notable fails. Edison 01:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously notable and if a lack of secondary sources seems to exist, perhaps it requires more investigating, or wait for those sources to develop. Policy does not dictate a shoot-on-sight approach to any article without secondary sources at the moment. If it did, we could all hit 'random article' and have a field day. -- Naruttebayo 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Carina22 01:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John E Depth

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO. The Evil Spartan 19:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete John E. Who? No sign of notability amidst the PR and puffery in the article. Tabercil 00:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - a homepage and myspace page do not establish notability. Shalom Hello 01:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete in failing WP:PORNBIO and I'm not too keen on looking for sources :) I'll gladly change my vote if anyone can present evidence of passing PORNBIO Corpx 01:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, now has sources. Deputy Premier of Kosovo is at least as important as a Lieutenant Governor of a US state, many of whom have articles. NawlinWiki 00:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riza Sapunxhiu

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

Marginal assertion of notability, but assertion is vague (important offices). A good dose of "might have been" as far as presidency goes. And totally unsourced. TexasAndroid 12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Woulda-coulda-shoulda doesn't cut it. Not notable. Realkyhick 17:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He was one of the eight members of the collegial head of state of Yugoslavia. We are talking about a large country not a county with a population of 1,000.--Getoar 09:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have now provided the necessary sources and his biography must look plausible now.--Getoar 10:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Eternalism (philosophy of time). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block Theory of the Universe

Block Theory of the Universe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Clearly not famous enough to be talked about. May b an obsolete theory, but I can find no evidence that this ever was Moglex 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The only reliable source using this phrase I can locate is this one, and the extent of its reference to this subject is the following text:
Several arguments have been based on the Special Theory to support a "block" theory of the universe, and hence tenseless time as an analogue to tenseless space. Minkowski spacetime has encouraged people to think of time as the fourth dimension, on a par with the three dimension of space. But Minkowski spacetime is not a simple four-dimensional space with four dimensions: rather, it is one which has 3 + 1 dimensions with a Lorentz signature that sharply distinguishes time-like separations from space-like ones.
Based on this use, perhaps a redirect to Minkowski space would be appropriate? JulesH 11:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • delete. No evidence this was ever a theory propounded by an actual scientist. Argyriou (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • redirect to Eternalism (philosophy of time), which appears to be a more throrough discussion of the same topic. (I make on judgement on whether that Eternalism article is appropriate to Wikipedia or not, however.) --EMS | Talk 21:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Eternalism per Ems above. The topic is the same, and the article under discussion is a duplicate. Shalom Hello 01:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Many years of physics education later, I've still never encounter this concept. Wouldn't surprise me if this were a hoax, though it could just be a non-notable theory raised one time in the past. If one can give a good sourced reason, redirect would be fine too. KTC 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —KTC 05:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep just because it's descredited doesn't mean it's not-notable. --PEAR (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The problem is there's no verifiable source to show it is notable. With no source, one can't even say it was discredited, as for all one know, it's a hoax. KTC 11:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment makes sense. --PEAR (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - To closing editor - Kindly note that there is no debate over whether this article is to be kept (as noone wants that). The issue instead is how to dispose of it. BTW - I am not at all sure that Eternalism (philosophy of time) should not be AfD-ed itself, but as long as that article exists it is reasonable for this one to redirect to it. (The big reason for other editors to call foe deletion is that they have not heard of eternalism either. Then again, before I researched this AfD I had not heard of it either.) --EMS | Talk 22:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect Makes sense to keep the redirect in case anyone else should look. DGG (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 21:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boomershoot

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

Obviously it is real, but notability comes into play - claims to have an article in Newsweek, but that gives a dead link. Moglex 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The only sources I could find were either boomershot.org or a mention of the sport using that web page as a reference. Doesn't seem notable enough. --GorillaWarfare talk 11:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know why my predecessors in this discussion didn't see this, but the links to Newsweek and Outside are active and point to published articles. The annual event is properly sourced and seems (barely) notable. Shalom Hello 01:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep with major cleanup - When you search for the article on Newsweek, an account password is required to view the archived article. Since you have to pay for that account, I would think the site is infringing on Newsweek's copyright to the article by displaying it publicly, and we're not helping by linking to it. The other two secondary sources seem ok (although I didn't watch the video, I was expecting another article), which does make it notable. It needs a helluva lot of work, though. Hersfold (talk/work) 12:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable .Harlowraman 18:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goya-Ra-Ru

Goya-Ra-Ru (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-noteable. There ar ea huge number of ghits but most look very much like blanket advertisement. I looked at the sites and perhaps I am wrong but I see very few practice locations.Peter Rehse 08:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 08:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN "Goya Ra Ru" gets 0 hits on Gnews (or archive) so unlikely to be notable. No 2ndary sources. There are too many 1 or 2 school styles to have an article on every one. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, insufficient notability. NawlinWiki 00:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Granger

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

The only reference on the web to "Derek Granger" and "The Edge" that I could find was a satirical blog that links to this Wikipedia article and a podcast page for the same blog. I was also unable to find any mention of The Edge 76.7 being a community radio station in Baulkham Hills. Even if the subject of the article exists, he may not meet the notability guidelines. Camw 04:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete nonnotable, no sources. NawlinWiki 16:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Also note that the article's subject wrote the article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable and has no sources. Oysterguitarist 00:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. --Paul Erik 01:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GT Observer

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

Non-notable product with few Ghits [74]. Article was originally created with intent to advertise product. --Uthbrian (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable software. AnthonM (talk · contribs), the original author in 2006, has no edits outside that article. Shalom Hello 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to have no notability independent of SQL Server, and the article is unimproved. Cool Hand Luke 04:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 00:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobcat Bite

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

Sounds like a nice place, don't get me wrong, but...article claims it has been mentioned in US papers, even in the New York Times - I say delete unless these "mentions" are sourced, and if the mentions are just brief mentions, it's not gonna be worth the while keepin it Moglex 21:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I added a reference to an award won (well, really an appearance on a top 20 list from GQ) and a reference to an appearance in a documentary. Checking the restaurant's website, you can find mentions of other awards/appearances in papers/magazines tha could likely be added (not now for me though, off to work). Seems notable enough, however. Craw-daddy 08:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - although I must admit I am biased considering this was the first article & edits I made on Wikipedia ;). I added references from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Santa Fe Reporter, and ABQ Journal. These inclusions should satisfy WP:NOTE. Chupper 14:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - With the new references, it is definitely a worthwhile article.Silver seren 19:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the references look solid enough to indicate some notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. Bart133 (t) (c) 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There was practically no mergeable content anyway. Sandstein 21:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Characters in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time Articles for deletion/Characters in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time (2nd nomination)
Characters in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was previously redirected to Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time as the result of an AfD. However it was recreated with descriptions of the characters. It couldn't be expanded beyond part of the plot summary for each character. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. — Malcolm (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge or Delete per Malcolm. Excessive even by Wikipedia standards Mandsford 00:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the other nomination. TTN 00:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, doesn't assert notability, though I suspect that it may be possible to source stuff about the characters from reviews; Gamespot praises the way that the baby versions of Mario and Luigi aren't excessively cute, for example.--Nydas(Talk) 08:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Restore the original redirect and merge anything useful into Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time. Not worth a separate article. EyeSereneTALK 12:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There's not much information on it, but i'll say Merge if there is anything that can be salvaged.Silver seren 19:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; anything useful is is probably in the main article, and a redirect wouldn't really be necessary. I doubt anyone will be using this as a search term. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect. Mathmo Talk 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, there's nothing worth preserving in this page. When you want a brief list of characters without any in-depth information, it can easily be included in the main article. Melsaran 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Harlowraman 18:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.