Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< August 8 August 10 >
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 as a copyvio. --DarkFalls talk 09:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of battle at Caporetto

Order of battle at Caporetto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not sure this needs its own article, lacks a lot of context and as of present fails WP:V, merge perhaps? Rackabello 23:57, 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 keep. --Coredesat 07:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gator Country

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

Band with a demo and one EP, fails WP:MUSIC. Would have listed it for speedy, but it's been here since December. Corvus cornix 23:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete A7, no assertion of notability, per nom. A demo and an EP do not satisfy WP:MUSIC. Also fails WP:V, only source is their website.. Rackabello 23:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I retract my previous vote, I wasn't aware that this was completely overwritten and sabotaged by another editor. Still needs some expansion, and an addition of more verifiable sources but notability concerns have been addressed. Rackabello 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article was about another band when it was nominated. It was originally a southern rock band, then a punk band at nomination time, and then returned to the southern rock band (via a large number of undo's) by the original creator who posted at Wikipedia:Help desk#How do I create two pages from a highjacked page?. It's possible both bands are non-notable. I don't edit music but just wanted to point out the problem. PrimeHunter 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This trainwreck appears to include Gator Country (from Orange County, CA) too. Can someone with a later bedtime than me hopefully

clean this up? --W.marsh 03:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I am the original creator of the page. On 09-Aug I noticed it was completely rewritten to discribe another band. After seeking help I worked to disambig both band's pages by creating a new page for the new band then restoring the original page via undos. I also changed the referring links. I also presented hangon arguments that seem to satisfy "assertion of importance" in that articles discussion page. Also user DarkFalls indicated on the history page that it "does have assertion". However the AdfM is still on the page. Can it be removed? Karstdiver 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The speedy deletion template {{db-band}} was removed after review by DarkFalls [1] who estimated the article doesn't satisfy the special Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (which allows deletion without debate in certain cases). That doesn't prevent the possibility of deletion after this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion debate. That is another process and {{AfDM}} will only be removed if the article is not deleted at the end of this debate. Debates usually last around 5 days. If you want the article to be kept then post a comment here starting with "Keep" and giving your argument(s). It's best if you can give convincing evidence that the band satisfies WP:BAND. PrimeHunter 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe the speedy delete should be moved to the new Gator Country (from Orange County, CA) page? Karstdiver 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepComment I have addressed both WP:BAND and WP:V on the talk:Gator Country page as follows:

For WP:Band: Referencing page WP:MUSIC "Criteria for musicians and ensembles 6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Justification Response: Per item 6 referenced just above the band Gator Country should not be marked for deletion because the band is made of members that were once members of notable band Molly Hatchet (for example vocalist Jimmy Farrar). For WP:V: I included several links to other sites mentioning the band on talk:Gator Country in an attempt to meet WP:V. I'm not sure this rises to the level of fact-checked sites but at least there is more of a web presence than just the band's own website. Karstdiver 17:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep CommentFor WP:V: The The Boston Globe Associated Press obituary report for Duane Roland mentions his membership in the Gator Country band. The Boston Globe and Associated Press should be considered fact-checked sources. Karstdiver 17:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Each editor is only allowed to say Keep/Delete once, so I have striken your second time. You are allowed to post additional arguments but start them with "Comment" or something else. PrimeHunter 22:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. I now understand WP:ADF and realize my participation has not been per process. I will endeavor to improve an actions in this process. Therefore I have change my initial entries to comments and added a rewritten keep entry. Karstdiver 01:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As the page's original creator I submit the following arguments towards not deleting the subject page.

The page in nomination was originally created Dec-2006. The page was good faith highjacked July-2007. The highjacked version of the page was nom for {{db-band}} and {{AfDM}} on 09-Aug-2007. The original content and highjacked content was restored and created 09,10-Aug-2007 by the original editor (who a was a WP:NEWBIE to the WP:AFD at the time this page underwent near simultaneous nomination and highjack recovery).

    • Keep Argument #1 The page's history timeline shows it was the highjacked version that was nominated for deletion and not the original version. Therefore this should be an WP:ADF on the highjacked version which was created as Gator Country (from Orange County, CA) during the page's originator's attempt to restore the original page on 09,10-Aug-2007.
    • Keep Argument #2 WP:MUSIC criteria for ensembles #6 is met by Gator County members being members of notable band Molly Hatchet.
    • Keep Argument #3 WP:V criteria for verifiability is met by several web presences (See talk:Gator Country).
    • Keep Argument #4 WP:V criteria for verifiability is met by the page's containing an obituary report being reported by fact-checked sources.
    • Keep Argument #5 The original version asserted WP:MUSIC importance by mentioning founding members of a notable band. See page's "...serveral founding members of..." text. Therefore {{db-band}} was misapplied.
    • Keep Argument #6 The nomination of {{AfDM}} was caused by the nomination of {{db-band}} and is therefore misapplied because Argument #5 shows the {{db-band}} was misapplied.
    • Keep Argument #7 The original nomination of {{AfDM}} may have been misapplied because applying Before nominating an AfD step "Click "What links here"" would have shown how the page was used (once for a Southern Rock band and once for a Folk Punk band). Therefore a process of Alternative to deletion such as Editing or Discussion should have been used.
    • Keep Argument Summary The orginal content mets WP:V and WP:MUSIC and does not warrent {{db-band}} and {{AfDM}} nominations.

Karstdiver 01:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Imagine a senario where a good page is completely overwritten by questionable content. It then gets nominated for speedy deletion. Then, unbeknowest to that page's editors, it gets speedily deleted. (Not all editors can log in everyday to check for overwrites.) Therefore, following WP:ADF gets perfectly good content deleted. Karstdiver 01:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears to meet WP:BAND, although some independent references would not go amiss. Nuttah68 13:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Karstdiver. --Moonriddengirl 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Karstdiver.--Mnemnoch 04:59, 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 No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Scientologist celebrities

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

Two reasons here: one, there's not clear cut definition for what a "celebrity" is, and two, it's essentially a fork of List of Scientologists, just for "celebrities". Kwsn(Ni!) 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep List of Scientologists (five dollars says that it gets nominated today or tomorrow, otherwise I'd say "Merge") incorporates former members and church officials. Most of the names on here are recognizable; many are a surprise, but every one is sourced, which we tend to like in an article. A celebrity is generally considered to be a person who gets 1,000 or more ghits, based on WP:GHITS (which doesn't exist, but it ought to) Mandsford 23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like you are five dollars richer, it has now been listed. Onto this AfD! You didn't guess that part, but you were still right..... Mathmo Talk 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - normally these lists are, in my opinion, of no value as they simply imply a causal link between two orthogonal characteristics of the list members. However; here I do not believe it to be the case. The existence of a special Celebrity Centre run by the Church of Scientology and its apparent strong interest in recruiting celebrities (as well as the disproportionate number of scientologists in the movie industry) make this a non-trivial intersection. I do not; however, that some text might be valuable elucidating the linkage(s). Bigdaddy1981 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back in with List of Scientologists (this is already tagged and has consensus) This list is properly referenced for membership in Scientology, unlike most of the category entries. It has also been proposed, after the merge, to change celebrity to notable, and require references for notability. By the time this nomination is done, it'll be over a #redirect stub. AndroidCat 00:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to the general list or else delete them both in favor of Category:Scientologists. Otto4711 00:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into either (or both?) List of Scientologists or Scientology and celebrities. As the latter article discusses, Scientology actively promotes itself among celebrities (and advertises itself by way of its celebrity members), making the topic notable, even when "List of Christian celebrities," "List of Islam celebrities," "List of Jewish celebrities," "List of agnostic celebrities," or any other hypothetical list of that form would not be notable. Although I think the topic is notable, I think this list does not need to be its own article. It would work better in combination with one of those other articles.--orlady 01:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, please remove List of Scientologists from the AfD. This is not correct process, as you are including it after the AfD has already started. Please strike it out yourself. Thanks. 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep roughly based on what Mandsford said. Mathmo Talk 01:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above, as I've been suggesting for a long long time now. wikipediatrix 01:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge those names not on the List of Scientologists. "Celebrity" is not a precisely defined word.--Fahrenheit451 01:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The scope of the article could be better defined at the start of the article, or alternatively moved to a better named article. Either way, while this is a problem.... it is not particularly big one. And such list of celebrities who are scientologists is very important, due to their linking with each other. We even have an article dealing entirely with this, Scientology and celebrities. I'd even say that is a better place to merge to, however I still believe it is better to not merge and have this as a stand alone article for purposes of increased navigation and readability. Mathmo Talk 01:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The existence of the supposed practice of Scientology to recruit celebrities doesn't mean that a list of celebrities is encyclopedic. Otto4711 03:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It is a very natural qestion who was recruited. It is always the case: if we have an article Xxx yy, then List of Xxx yy is reasonable, if the entries in the List are wikipedia articles, but creating a category would be pointles, if the criterion is not really definitive. Planet->List of planets but not Table->List of tables Mukadderat 21:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is what categories are for.--Dacium 03:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Categories and lists are not exactly the same. Do not get all of one because the other exists. Mathmo Talk 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please remove List of Scientologists from this AFD. It was added quietly after 8 people had commented. This is making it almost impossible to figure out what people are commenting on.--orlady 03:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You can see people are still making comments to merge into this list which has been incorrectly. There is even a merge directly underneath your very prominent comment! Mathmo Talk 04:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge the celebrities list into List of Scientologists per above. --musicpvm 04:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Trivial intersection of religion + celebrity status (WP:OCAT) Corpx 04:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Not trivial at all, far from it. Scientology has very strong links with many celebrities. Mathmo Talk 04:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it a trivial intersection? There is an entire article based on the connection between Scientologist and celebrities (Scientology and celebrities). --musicpvm 09:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Which would make it "a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." per WP:OCAT. Kappa 09:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. This to me is no different than celebrity fans of a sports team. This is not based on the connection between Scientology and celebs, but rather is a list of famous people who follow this religion, which is a trivial intersection, just like it'd be for List of Christian celebrities Corpx 14:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
How many articles do we have about celebrity fans of sports teams? Kappa 20:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Only time I've seen them is when they end up on AFD and they get deleted. Corpx 22:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well there you go, or you do think Scientology and celebrities is deleteable? Kappa 21:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Notable intersection. I don't actually think a category is a good idea, because people will already be in something like Category:American Scientologists. Kappa 09:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    Also Category:Celebrities tells us "Individuals should only included in this category if they do not fit into another occupational category" (ie "famous for being famous") so making this a subcat would break that. Kappa 09:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into Scientology and celebrities. Many delete votes are saying this is a trivial intersection between two unrelated topics, however Scientology actively uses media and arts celebrities to publicise itself as a matter of policy, therefore it is valuable to have a well sourced list of which 'celebrities' are scientologists. "Recruitment and endorsements by Scientologist celebrities have always been very important to the Church of Scientology. Scientology actively recruits celebrities to promote Scientology to the public at large. Written Scientology policies describe recruiting celebrities in great detail. Scientology has had a written program governing celebrity recruitment since at least 1955, when L. Ron Hubbard created "Project Celebrity", offering rewards to Scientologists who recruited targeted celebrities. A Scientology policy letter of 1976 states that "rehabilitation of celebrities who are just beyond or just approaching their prime" enables the "rapid dissemination" of Scientology." Nick mallory 23:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The concept of celebrity might be fuzzy in real life, but -- even ignoring the fact that so is notability -- in context of Scientology, celebrities are very clearly defined through the use of the Celebrity Centres. Accordingly, the original nomination's first clause is laid to an invalid premise.
As for the second clause -- this happens to be incorrect as well. For an obvious counterexample, Lisa McPherson was certainly a notable Scientologist, but she does not fit into the Scientologist celebrity category. Digwuren 10:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - As others have noted, the Church of Scientology has a specific relationship to celebrities which makes this a meaningful category. john k 23:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The CoS has specific policies regarding the recruitment of celebrities, including Celebrity Centres and Hubbard made a list of celebrities to recruit in 1963. So this is relevant. On the other hand List of Scientologists can be deleted. --Leocomix 08:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It does seem to me that the two lists are redundant to each other. However, there are already two pages, Celebrity Centre and Scientology and celebrities, which show that this organization makes a particular effort to "recruit" celebrities. Presumably, involvement in one of these centres qualifies as its definition of celebrities. I'm not sure the other list couldn't be deleted, unless we have evidence that a fair number of non-celebrity academics or others who the church doesn't consider "celebrities" can be added to it. John Carter 15:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, concerns raised by nominator not addressed. --Coredesat 07:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein syndrome

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

Relies entirely on self-published sources and works by one author, which expound on this condition. Fails WP:N, as this syndrome lacks independent, reliably sourced evidence of notability. No medical, scientific, or non-Thomas-Sowell-authored sources describe this syndrome. MastCell Talk 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, relies entirely on self-published work by one author, and I was not able to locate any other reliable info about the alleged condition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an established syndrome by any medical authority. Unable to establish notability due to lack of reliable sources since, as MastCell and Sandy have noted, all the references are connected to the economist-author Thomas Sowell. No PubMed sources. Google search reveals many non-RS blog discussions, but little else. -- MarcoTolo 23:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research, fails WP:V and WP:NOT Rackabello 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not original research, seeing how it's based on an actual book and all, but still just one book. A silly idea, probably makes parents feel better if their kid doesn't start talking when the baby book says it's supposed to. If you liked Restless leg syndrome, then you'll love Einstein syndrom. I loved the list of retrospective sufferers. G. Gordon Liddy had Einstein syndrome? So what the hell happened? Mandsford 23:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I am persuaded that I judged this one too quickly, and am registering a keep vote below. Mandsford 18:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Restless Leg Syndrome is a recognized disorder, unlike this one although it might sound like a silly name.DGG (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Have any of you actually read Thomas Sowell's book on the subject? I have. It is not, so far as I am aware, self-published. The theory he puts forward has, unless I am greatly mistaken, been endorsed by Stephen M. Camarata, a leading authority on late-talking children. And no less a scientist than Steven Pinker is quoted on the back cover of my paperback copy as saying: "Often it takes an outsider to recognize a profound phenomenon that the specialists have overlooked, and The Einstein Syndrome is a prime example. Thomas Sowell, trained in economics, famous for his political commentary, and widely honored for his magisterial works on race, culture, and history, has thrown new light on a fascinating topic that until now has been poorly documented...[.] I have found The Einstein Syndrome, like Sowell's previous book on late-talking children, filled with insight, acute observations, and fertile ideas." — alderbourne 00:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Are you aware of any independent, reliable secondary sources corroborating the importance of this syndrome, and if so, could you cite them here? I'm not being snarky, I just have not been able to find such sources, and without them, the syndrome, while it may or may not be a useful construct, fails Wikipedia's specific definition of notability. Book cover blurbs alone aren't enough. MastCell Talk 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Mandsford, if you had read Thomas Sowell's book — and it is clear you haven't — you wouldn't have made such ill-informed remarks. Sowell appears to have identified a previously undescribed syndrome that, while resembling Asperger Syndrome, differs from it in important respects. His views have been endorsed by such distinguished authorities as Stephen M. Camarata and Steven Pinker. By the way, your comment about G. Gordon Liddy is as ignorant as it is flippant. Having what Sowell has chosen to call Einstein Syndrome doesn't mean that one is a genius. And in any case what do you know about Liddy? Have you read his autobiography, Will? Probably not. — Jake Rilko 01:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    No, I haven't read his autobiography. How did you know my name was Will?

Mandsford 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If this is truly an important new syndrome, then we should be able to cite independent confirmation of its existence, in the form of reliable sources. I haven't been able to find such sources; if you know of some, please cite them here. MastCell Talk 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There's essentially nothing in the medical literature, but I found a book review by Isabelle Rapin, a well-known and well-published autism expert. She doesn't seem to think much of it. [3] "Early, individualized intervention is mandatory for children, no matter how bright, whose language comprehension is inadequate, and for those with troublesome behavioral traits bordering on or indicative of an autistic spectrum (pervasive developmental disorder/PDD) diagnosis. Children with isolated abilities who are functionally inept in every day life are not 'Einstein children' and their deficits must be addressed promptly and specifically." As far as I can tell, this is the only piece published indepdently from the book itself that even acknowledges the existence of this theory. Since her review was written in 2002, it doesn't seem that the theory is taking hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, poorly constructed WP:COATRACK of an article. The appropriate topic would be the book Sowell wrote, which probably passes WP:BK fairly easily. In that article Sowell's non-expert hypotheses could be discussed. --Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a formal diagnosis in the sense that it has no DSM criteria and has no notability outside the speculative work by its protagonist. Could be merged with its author without further difficulty. JFW | T@lk 06:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As noted above, no independent sources to show notability. It appears that this theory has not gained any significant attention from the medical community. Cap'n Walker 14:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: googling through .edu domain finds another definition of the "Einstein syndrome": idea that science usually progresses through giant intellectual leaps [4]. (No suggestion from me how notable this definition is.) Pavel Vozenilek 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of notability, sources. If the book is shown to be notable (shouldn't be too hard for an interested editor to find out and prove), this can be moved to an article about the book. Alternatively merge into the author's article. Striking out this sentence, as I see the info is already in the author's article. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of what is medically "important," and can only judge this based on the existence of multiple, reliable, independent sources. Someguy1221 00:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Upon further review, I conclude that is goes beyond a theory-of-the-week. Child psychiatry is a field that is constantly evolving, and there are instances where recognition of particular signals from a child can result in the child receiving proper guidance (in this case, the "treatment" is in the educational process). I consider this to be similar to Reactive attachment disorder, which is sometimes ridiculed because of its acronym (RAD), just as attention deficit disorder once was. While I engaged in my own ridicule of a diagnosis of Einstein syndrome, I realize now that it was unmerited. I encourage everyone to reconsider their opinion, regardless of whether one changes a vote. Mandsford 18:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Mandsford, do you have a single indication that any realm of psychiatry or medicine has even considered this syndrome? I can't find one. Reactive attachment disorder, on the other hand, may be "ridiculed, but it is acknowledged and studied. This "syndrome" hasn't even risen to the level of ridicule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with Dhartung. An article on the book "The Einstein Syndrome" might pass but you can't get a syndrome into an encyclopaedia until other people start using it as a meaningful entity. It isn't relevant whether other experts think the author makes a good point (as alderbourne argues) they've got to choose to use that phrase in their own published writing and start classifying people with the "syndrome" in medical practice. Colin°Talk 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a syndrome that might not be well recognized by the medical community, but nevertheless is a syndrome. Wikipedia isn't paper. --Mnemnoch 05:09, 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 merge. VoltronForce 03:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korki Buchek

Very minor character from Borat/ Da Ali G Show who is only seen on screen once in an MTV promo and is mentioned only a few times on the TV show and once in the Borat movie. Although possibly notable enough for a mention either in Borat or Da Ali G Show, not sure it merits its own article. Would not at all be opposed to a merge. Rackabello 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge dis for make benefit glorious fetish and fancruft farm of Vikipedia. --Tapджмaн 23:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominator (forgot to cast my own vote!) Rackabello 21:09, 10

August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge into Borat. It's a bit of a cultural phenomenon now, and even if that weren't the case, it's still part of the whole Borat phenomenon, so it merits merger into that article. 24.192.16.130
  • Reduce and merge into Borat. SilkTork 15:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as per above. Harlowraman 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buky ohioma

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

Apparent vanity page with dubious notability and truthfulness. Rackabello 22:53, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Ginsberg

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

Non-notable bit part actor. The article verges on vanispamicruft. A glance at the edit history suggests likely WP:COI as a major editor (a likely spa) is Adam Ginsberg. No verifiable sources to speak of and the individual's IMDB can only be described as vestigial (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2730930/). Bigdaddy1981 22:31, 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 Eluchil404 20:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zimbabwean cultural practices

Zimbabwean cultural practices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Many section titles, but no encyclopedic content since April 2007 creation. Was a prod, but author challenged in-article stating [the entry] was "inviting those who know the culture to contribute", thereby failing prod's "uncontroversial" req. Michael Devore 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete one subhead has content - and this consists of unsourced OR. The others are empty. I further note that Culture of Zimbabwe exists and actually has content. Bigdaddy1981 22:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bigdaddy1981. The page probably should be made into a redirect to Culture of Zimbabwe. Sxeptomaniac 22:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect as suggested above as their is virtually no content.--JForget 23:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Suffers from American cultural practice of starting a project and then abandoning it. Mandsford 23:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Is a comment like that really necessary? Corpx 04:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No, not really. By and large, most of the comments made in AfD aren't really necessary. Mr. Devore is right, however, that there has been nothing added for nearly four months. Mandsford 21:23, 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 No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 15:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups

List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A list of players who aren't notable, an indiscriminate collection of non-notable information; no encyclopedic value. Ksy92003(talk) 22:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. This information is more suited to a sports almanac. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep All these players are notable.. they are all major league baseball players... the information is certainly notable.. these are the opening day starting lineups for the Dodgers since they came to Los Angeles.. it is information that is certainly as relevant and informative as many of the other baseball lists on wikipedia. It certainly has value. No valid reason for deletion. Spanneraol 22:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Erm, the players are all notable by definition as they've played in a professional league (WP:BIO). As for the article itself, I'll leave it to people who actually know about baseball to decide how much significance there is to opening day starting line-ups - to me it looks slightly listcrufty, but as a Brit I'm probably not really the one to judge Iain99 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment What about the fact that they all were opening day starters for a team gives them instant notability? A player isn't notable because of the fact that there was one particular game that they played in. Ksy92003(talk) 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment They are all notable because they all played Major League Baseball. If they weren't notable they would not even have pages on wikipedia. Spanneraol 22:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • For your reference the pertinent guidelines are at WP:BIO that state a person who plays at the professional level of a sport are generally considered notable for that fact alone. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Spanneraol, I'm not sure you understand me. I'm not denying that the players are notable; I feel they are all notable for the fact that they all played a Major League game. What I'm saying is that they aren't notable because they were on a team's opening day roster. Listing all the opening day starters (a player playing one particular game for any team isn't notable) is listing indiscriminate information. Ksy92003(talk) 22:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Ksy, I disagree.. The opening day starters dont just play that one game.. these are the guys that started the season.. That has value as a historical look at who the starting players were for the team at the start of the season.. For fans of the team or people interested in baseball history it has notable value. Many lists of baseball players are on wiki, this one has as much value as many of the other ones. Spanneraol 22:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
            • One more thing: the list is an exact replicate of Baseball-reference's page. This is copyvio and is not allowed on Wikipedia. Ksy92003(talk) 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
                • It is not an exact duplicate of there page.. The information came from them, but information can not be copyrighted.. The table is different, the links are different, it was not copied and pasted.. Spanneraol 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It isn't an exact duplicate? Did you even bother to look at Baseball-references's page? It's the exact same format. Ksy92003(talk) 22:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
          • The information can not be copyrighted.. It is a similar table, but not the same.. not a copyright violationSpanneraol 23:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
            • If you're so confident that it isn't the same, then please tell me how. Ksy92003(talk) 23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
              • I believe I already have.. different formatting, different links, different ordering of the data, much less extraneous information.. etc. Spanneraol 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
                • I mean specifically: what is the difference between the formats, how are the links different, how are they ordered differently, what extraneous information? I fail to see anything from the Wikipedia article that isn't on Baseball-reference's page. Ksy92003(talk) 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • The b-r links go to B-r pages, the links here go to the wiki pages, the B-R page contains lots of other information about who won, who lost, the teams that played, they have many other charts comparing different lineups.. they have other years going back earlier... again, information is not copyrightable. Spanneraol 23:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • There's a difference between taking partial information from a page and taking partial information from a page in whole. And I'm not talking about the different lineups, who won the game, etc. I'm talking about "what on the Wikipedia article isn't on Baseball-reference's page." Ksy92003(talk) 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It does not matter.. the information about who played in the games is free and can be recovered from multiple other sources of box scores. Spanneraol 23:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
          • But the format of the table and everything on the page is 100% similar to Baseball-reference's page on this topic. It goes "catcher, 1B, 2B, etc.," most recent years on the top and earlier years on the bottom... that information is EXACTLY the same as Baseball-reference's page. Because of the exact similarities, this is what makes it copyvio. Ksy92003(talk) 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
            • The format of the table was done before I saw that other page. The information can only be done so many ways. If you want me to switch where the years are I can attempt to do that.. Good grief! Spanneraol 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
              • I still don't think you understand. The chart itself isn't the reason why it's copyvio. It's because all the information on Wikipedia's article is copied from another cite. But that aside, the article is still a list of non-notable information, which is the reason why I nominated it. I didn't notice it was the same until after I nominated it. But many problems can arise because of this copyright issue. You still don't understand that the article is copyvio. Ksy92003(talk) 23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
                • All of the information is free and in the public domain.. it being taken from one site or many sites it is still free information and not a copyright violation. The information was taken from one site because that site had it arranged nicely.. it could also have been taken from several other sites.. This information is from box scores which are in the public domain... and thus not a copyright violation.. Spanneraol 23:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete please read WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOT, the notabilty case is moot here as we are talking about a list here, not the players of the list, with that reasoning, every list on pointless subjects gets articles, because they have related to notable people. Jaranda wat's sup 23:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If anything, the info can be used in the page for each season, but

otherwise it's very crufty. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Sports generally gets a "bye" in Wikipedia, and this is encylopedic even by baseball encyclopedia standards. Interesting format for identifying the starting lineups for each year. Mandsford 23:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
See WP:INTERESTING Jaranda wat's sup 23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Well, if it's a copyright violation, then it gets deleted even if we all vote to keep. And I see your point that this is lifted directly from baseball-reference.com. To be strictly technical, I'm not sure that the website's information is copyrighted. However, I abwhore plagiarism, and it is clear that someone else's work has been pirated here. Thus, you have actually persuaded me. I change my vote. Mandsford 21:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Again, it is not a copy violation as the information is free.. It is not indiscriminate information as it is about a particular topic... and it is notable.. and the fact that other sites have similar pages proves that. Spanneraol 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Information as a bare state is free. Information in the same style and format as something else is not. If you tell Baseball-reference that it isn't copyvio when it's exactly the same as Baseball-reference's page, you won't be able to convince them that you didn't take it directly from Baseball-reference, which is the basis of copyvio. Ksy92003(talk) 23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Being similar to something else is not a copyright violation. It is NOT exactly the same.. I did not copy and paste their pages.. I took the information, which is free and available to everyone, made my own chart, and typed everything in myself, making my own links for the names... It was a lot of work.. just copying their page as you suggest would be much easier but that is not what happened no matter what you keep repeating. Spanneraol 23:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • God, you just fail to understand. I don't know if you'll ever understand. Jaranda and I have provided at least 4 reasons, and you deny them all. I don't know how you can possibly deny the fact that the article is similar enough to Baseball-reference's page to sue you for plagirism if they wanted to. The information is free; getting the information from Baseball-reference and using the exact same format as they do without their permission is something completely different and illegal, not just by Wikipedia policy, but by law. Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted. Without permission from Baseball-reference, you can't use their information and replicate it in the exact same format as they do, whether you left out extraneous information or not. Ksy92003(talk) 00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)\
        • Again, it is NOT exactly the same format and on a recent discussion on the WP:Baseball boards someone posted a conversation with B-Rs guy where he said * <<<Forman: Thank you. You are welcome to use stats in a manner such as hand entertng data, but I would be opposed to machine-aided copying of large numbers of pages.>>> These were used by hand entering data, which he has given permission for. It is not the exact same format, similar yes but not "the exact same format"... You can cite whatever things you want, it doesnt make what you are saying true... information and box scores are free in the public domain and can be used in whatever charts people come up with..
          • That comment was in response to the query about using PARTIAL stats and PARTIAL information, not an entire page's information, such as what you have done. And for some reason, you still deny the fact that the formats aren't the same. I don't have the slighest clue how you could possibly deny it, as looking at both Wikipedia's article and B-R's page, it looks exactly the same as far as the format of the table. Ksy92003(talk) 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
            • It is similar, it is not exactly the same. How many other ways can you format this data? And it did not use the entire pages information as you certainly admitted that I left out lots of the data that was on that page.
      • It doesn't matter that you didn't use all the information. It's the fact that the information that you did use was taken in its exact state as it was found. It doesn't matter if you didn't take the entire article and reproduce it, but you took a large part of another person's hard work and reproduced it exactly without making any additions on your own. Ksy92003(talk) 00:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Thats complete hogwash... I made the table and started entering data before finding that page.. it simply made it easier. I had to type everything in myself... I did not copy and paste their charts.. their chart and mine are different.. It is not taken "in the exact state as found" there site had links to B-R pages, used just the players last names, so in adition to typing everything myself I added links, first names, etc.. that were not on there page.. so you can not say I didnt make any additions on my own.
Comment You folks are going around in circles on something that isn't even germane to this page. Let's decide first whether there should be a page like this. If the answer is no, then the copyvio question is moot. If the answer is yes, then the question can be brought to a more suitable venue. Matchups 01:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Meaning #7 of WP:LISTCRUFT seems to apply here. If the information is notable (and it probably is), it would be better presented in the individual season articles. (Also much easier to give it context on a season-by-season basis.) --Fabrictramp 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just raw data. Raw data is good for aid in creating an encyclopedia article but is not itself an encyclopedia article. This falls under indescriminate collection of information and functions similar to a directory as well. Indrian 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Its a list.. lists are often just data or lists of names.
  • Delete: Sorry, too crufty even for me. Opening day isn't really all that important in the grand scheme of things. It's one individual game. If a guy is hurt in spring training and is not quite ready for opening day then the list here might show the name of some 3rd stringer who played 2 games his whole career. Who cares? Show me who played most of the games at each position each year and maybe I'd be interested. (I've even compiled lists like that in my spare time). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, this falls under navigational purposes. Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose_of_lists Mathmo Talk 01:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. I agree with wknight; this really is just too much trivia; listcruft. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - This is extremely trivial information and I dont think an encyclopedia should get in the business of accumulating starting day rosters for every team. I also see very little notability for starting day rosters in a sport like baseball. Corpx 04:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is useful not just for navigational purposes, but for research on teams over time. I disagree with Fabrictramp's comment about moving to individual season articles. Keeping it here makes it easy to see who played for multiple seasons, who moved around in the batting order, etc. It is not listcruft. Including the lineup for every game of the season would be, but opening day has a special cachet, and even its own article! Matchups 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Trade deadline has an article too. Does that mean we should have an article showing a snapshot of each team's entire roster at the trade deadline of each season? Again, it's just one individual day without special significance - specifically without any special significance in relation to the team's roster. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • If the topic is truly that important (I don't feel that it is), there is a website that displays exactly the same information in exactly the same format: [5]. The information is trivial as is, but if anybody wants to see this information, then just go to Baseball-reference. I mean if you compare B-R with this article, you'll see that the similarities are more than too similar. Also, please see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Just because it exists and there is a website about it doesn't mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. Ksy92003(talk) 17:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The Baseball Reference article doesn't provide the navigational functionality of the WP page. And just because there is another website about it where somebody can get the information doesn't mean we're justified in deleting it here.
The trade deadline argument is cute, but a straw man. As noted in the Opening Day article, it is a particular honor to be the starting pitcher on that day. Other days of the season, somebody might get a day off because they're tired. Check attendance figures for opening day versus any other day of the season, whether the trading deadline or not. I'll bet that will confirm the importance that fans place on that game. Matchups 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll let Wknight94 respond to the point about opening day, but I do have something to say about that. We can agree that more people go to games on opening day than trade deadline day, but that's immaterial. Wknight brings a good point. From a baseball standpoint, the game played on opening day is no more important than the game played on July 31 (trade deadline day) or any random day, such as August 18. All these games count as either 1 win or 1 loss; there is no extra significance from opening day to any other day. The second game of the season is just as significant, or the starting pitcher for the first game of each three-game series a team plays during a season. It's not notable because there isn't anything extra gained; opening day is no more significant than any other day. The only thing significant about opening day, if anything, is the fact that after that day a team is either 0-1 or 1-0. I mean it's one game... there are 162 games in a season, and just one of those 162 games has any added significance. Ksy92003(talk) 18:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's symbolic significance and enhances the reputation of the starting pitcher to be selected as the Opening Day starter. Often there is media attention about who the opening day starters are going to be. They are introduced on the field before the game on opening day, they are not introduced on any other day of the season. Spanneraol 18:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strange... they announce the starting rosters at Angel Stadium before every game. I don't know about other ballparks, but at Angel Stadium the starting lineups are announced every single game for both the Angels and thei ropponents, and I'm pretty sure that this is constant throughout the league at every single ballpark. Ksy92003(talk) 18:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you ever actualy been to an opening day game? Yes they announce the lineups on the scoreboard.. but on opening day they players are all on the field and they run out to the baselines to take the applause with much pomp and circumstances. Spanneraol 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why yes, I have been to many opening day games. But now, Spanner, you're giving the argument that just because players are cheered for or booed at that makes them notable. The reason why they announce the entire rosters is because it's the first game of the season and some people are injured, in the minor leagues; it's to inform the fans whose on the team. They announce the starting roster the same way they announce all the other players. They say who's batting first, second, etc. and in what position like normal. They come out on to the field because the rest of the entire team is out there, which again, the bench players and coaches are only announced on the field so the fans know who's on the team and who's in the minor leagues or on the DL. Ksy92003(talk) 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you honestly saying that you see no difference between opening day and day 138? Or is it just cause you say on your user page that you hate the Dodgers that you are pushing this so hard? Spanneraol 19:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Let's not get paranoid. I'm also saying there's no difference - alright, the starting pitcher takes extra significance so it is 1/9th more important. But that's it and it still doesn't warrant a whole separate article. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Opening Day already has a whole separate article. I'd say there is special media attention in the home markets on opening day which gives it significance. Spanneraol 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
          • My dislike of the Dodgers has nothing to do with this. I would hold the same opinion no matter which team it is, even if it were the Angels. I'm not going to let my dislike of a single team to damage the encyclopedia. I don't feel that nominating this article for an AfD damages the encyclopedia at all. There is a difference in the games #1 and #138 in the sense that after #1, a team could be 1-0 and after #138, a team could be 82-56. That's the only significant difference I see.
          • And reviving Wknight94's point: trade deadline has its own article, so is it important to list the team's roster on trade deadline day? Ksy92003(talk) 19:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Matchups already responded to the trade deadline remark.. It's not at all the same. Most teams dont change their rosters on trade deadline.. thats just silly... Opening day is a special day on the baseball calendar.. i don't see how you can follow the sport and not know that. Spanneraol 19:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes, it's a special day, that's why it has its own article. But the exact lineup of every single team on opening day has no significance whatsoever. What's next? List of Opening Day umpires at Shea Stadium? Who cares? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • And trade deadline isn't a special day on the baseball calendar? Ksy92003(talk) 19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It's not the same thing... now you are just being silly... Do you ever hear anyone say "oh i have to go to the park on trade deadline day?" Come on! Spanneraol 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
          • So you're saying that you have to go to a game for it for it to be an important day. Ksy92003(talk) 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
          • But do you find yourself saying, "gee I wonder who the Opening Day left fielder was?" I don't. Maybe you'd like to know who the intended starting left fielder was at the beginning of the season but that's not what this article is showing. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I went to opening day for the Angels. I can't even remember who started the game at third base for the Angels that day. It's too trivial and unimportant, as far as I see. I could care less because their current star third baseman, Chone Figgins, was on the disabled list at the start of the season. So do I care who started in his place? No. Ksy92003(talk) 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Well you certainly could be saying "I wonder who the opening day starting pitcher was" or "who were the starting pitchers on opening day for team x" the past 10 years? Spanneraol 19:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • But this also applies to starting pitchers. Obvious #1 starters miss Opening Day every year. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It still has historical value. Just cause the two of you don't care doesn't mean that other people wouldn't care about it. Spanneraol 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
        • See WP:INTERESTING. You can't use as an argument that you think it's interesting, and you can't speak for other people, either. You can't say "Just because you two don't care about it doens't mean other people won't." Let them speak for themselves. Ksy92003(talk) 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
          • There have been other people in this thread who have said they thought it was usefull. I can use any arguments I want.. If you are allowed to say you don't find it interesting, then I am allowed to say I do. Otherwise it is pointless.. Those WP argument guidelines were written for the express purpose of making it hard to argue anything. Spanneraol 20:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I never said I thought it was uninteresting... I don't think that it's interesting, but I never used that as an argument. I said it wasn't notable, and a collection of indiscriminate information. Ksy92003(talk) 20:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, let's ease up all. Spanneraol is right that everyone's made their opinions known and the closing admin has what s/he needs to make a call. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Question I wonder if there is a consensus for the inclusion of lists of players for a given pro-sports team in a given year? If so, it would be trivial to include the information as to starting lineups, and changes through the season. FrozenPurpleCube 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Folks, let's not get so hung up above that you miss this. This is a very good suggestion. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I have several problems with this list...
    1. The fact that it only includes seasons from 1958 is somewhat of an arbitrary condition. Sure the team moved, but they still had Opening Day in Brooklyn. So why separate lists (in theory)?
    2. There's no reason why this information can't be included in the articles for the Dodgers' indivdual seasons (such as 2006 Los Angeles Dodgers season).
    3. As stated above, this strays waaaay too far into WP:NOT territory.
    4. While not wholly related to this AfD, the same user added succession boxes to the player pages for each member of each of the Opening Day rosters. (For an example, see Steve Sax.) "Succession box bloat" has been an issue of contention at WP:WPBB in the past; this is one of the worst examples of the phenomenon yet. Caknuck 20:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I was told to do the lineups as a list instead of as succession boxes.. apparently I'm not allowed to do that either? I haven't been able to get the information earlier than 58... The team does not have articles for all there seasons, only 2006 & 2007... Creating whole articles about each season is simply a lot of work.. and someone else on here did point out that its handy to have the information in this format to track changes between seasons. Spanneraol 20:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, creating pages about each season would be a lot of work, but it'd be work that'd probably be more acceptable to folks. FrozenPurpleCube 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course if the info is moved to all the season pages, you would have to go to over thirty different pages to get info that is now available on one page. Spanneraol 14:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but doing it that way will maintain the same information, whilst not not putting all the information on an article which currently violates WP:N, WP:CP, WP:LC, and WP:NOT#INFO. Ksy92003(talk) 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
That is your opinion, I disagree. Making it harder to find information aparently is your goalSpanneraol 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's what this AfD is to debate. You don't think it violates any of those four guidelines, while I do. That's why we have AfD debates, so we can determine that. If you want to think that my goal is to make the information harder to find, then you're gravely mistaken. On the contrary, I've said numerous times that this information is already easy to find and formatted in an incredibly similar way, something you continue to deny, at Baseball-Reference's page. Ksy92003(talk) 18:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'll note that I was the contributor who recommended listifying rather than using succession boxes; as for copvio issues, the info can obviously be found in numerous newspapers following each Opening Day game, so it's not subject to copyright. I would have no objections to including the data in articles for individual seasons, though (as noted) these generally haven't been created. As for notability, I'll note that Major League Baseball recognizes official records for most Opening Day games as a starting pitcher, so they obviously recognize that game as being of particular importance. (I concede that there's a noteworthy difference between being selected as the starting pitcher, which changes from day to day, and being the starting right fielder.) But the list does help to indicate what the team intended to be its principal lineup during the year. MisfitToys 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- Caknuck 19:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No one has explained why this is encyclopedic and not listcruft. Why is this one day more important then the first game after the all star break? Or the first game in August? Vegaswikian 05:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Opening day has always been regarded as significantly more important than the average game. That's why the President always takes time out of his schedule to throw the first pitch, for example (going back all the way to Taft). The appeal is primarily emotional, rooted in tradition, but since baseball is a sport that's very invested in its traditions it's a pretty big deal. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the current president, Bush, has a connection to the Texas Rangers, so that could have something to do with that tradition in the league today. No doubt that the opening day game is significant amongst baseball enthusiasts, such as myself. But although the day is notable, that doesn't necessarily make the specific game any more notable, and consequently that doesn't make the list of players who played on that day a notable list. I mean there are plenty of aspects of opening day that are more significant than other days. Just to name a few: attendance, ticket prices, parking price, beer prices, the pre-game flyover. Why not something like "List of beer prices on opening day" or "List of pilots who flew over Wrigley Field on opening day?" Ksy92003(talk) 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not just a Bush thing. If anything, it's the opposite; Bush was roundly criticized in the press for bypassing the opening day tradition this year, making him only the second president to miss one (the first was Nixon during Watergate). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay so Opening Day is a ceremonial big deal - that's why it has its own article. None of this explains why the actual lineup on opening day is any more significant than on any other day. Other than a team will usually use it's #1 pitcher on opening day, there is no other special significance to the lineup on opening day over any other day. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
In comparison, the games a team plays when they have the chance to clinch a playoff spot are much more important that opening day. But it wouldn't make sense to have a list of a team's starters when they have the chance to do this, assuming they were like the Yankees and clinch a playoff spot every year, would it? I mean opening day is just one game that isn't even the most significant game a team plays during the regular 162-game season. Ksy92003(talk) 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Opening day lineups are definitely more significant than any other game's lineups. As has been stated earlier, there is a significance to being a team's starting pitcher on opening day and the lineups are introduced much like they are at the All-Star game and the first game of League Division Series, League Championship Series and World Series serieses. I think it's fascinating to see the progression of a team's opening day lineup through the years. I'd also like to see information added to the article answering questions such as "Why did Mariano Duncan start in place of Steve Sax at 2B in 1985?". I believe that info would improve the article. I also believe that we should table the copyright violation discussions until this Afd is resolved. It's cluttering up the flow of the article. Copyvio was not listed as an original reason for deleting. X96lee15 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't notice the copyvio until after I nominated it, so I probably shouldn't have brought that into the discussion at the time I did. But first, let's determine the AfD, and then if the article is kept we can deal with the copyvio discussion. But let's not remove it from the page because those discussions could become quite important later. Ksy92003(talk) 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The article can certainly be improved with extra information like X96 suggests and if it is kept I'll work on adding stuff like that... Spanneraol 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this page should be kept because it will be useful for a lot of people and will help them remember some players that they have forgotten. LightningOffense 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Sports fans can find an infinite number of ways to arrange information. We must not let them use Wikipedia for this purpose. The players should be forgotten, LightningOffense, if Wikipedia is their only hope of being remembered. 75.184.84.89 13:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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" 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Terms

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

As far as I can tell, all definitions of this type were moved to Wikitionary. See Sexual Slang and history of List of sexual slang. Delete content and Redirect page title. Exxolon 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • delete Seems to me to be just a list with no encyclopedic value. Pat Payne 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as worthless junk. Bigdaddy1981 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. Sxeptomaniac 22:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP is not a dictionnary.--JForget 23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep For every child who was too embarrassed to admit that they didn't know... there's Wikipedia. Redirect if need be to one of the other lists, although I'm sure some prude will nominate those soon. Mandsford 23:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: you're kidding, right? Lord Sesshomaru 03:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    No, oddly enough, I'm not kidding. I remember when Playboy magazine published a book in the 70s about the origins of various lewd terms, and as with Dr. David Reuben's "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex*", it was enlightening.

Mandsford 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.--orlady 00:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A List with no value. Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy delete List looks like patent nonsense to me. Lord Sesshomaru 03:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO - Not the place to put slang definitions in Corpx 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This was created by a troll, originally under the title Sex Slang. I created sex slang with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary page, but he was determined to recreate this OR-crap. Finally, Riana deleted Sex Slang and created a redirect there, and now he recreated it under another name. Speedy delete. Melsaran 11:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Irrelevant list of rubbish with zero value and zero cites. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Escape Orbit 16:34, 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. ck lostsword•T•C 20:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duo Princess

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

Unofficial and non-notable fangame. Kariteh 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete not an official game, apparently no verifiability either: most of what's on Google for it has it among lists of similar stuff for download, no apparent reviews in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. User:Krator (t c) 23:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 05:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with above reasons. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete - per nom, though I quite like the box art. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. No need to speedy delete, let this run its due course. Burntsauce 17:08, 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 delete per consensus. At the moment the twins are in the same position as any sportsperson whose talent has been recognised and has been taken on to develop. If they make the grade, fine, then the article may be recreated but at present they are not notable. TerriersFan 01:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Garcia Twins

Vanity of twin models "currently signed to World Wrestling Entertainment training in their developmental facility" `'Míkka 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • delete - no notability asserted. Mukadderat 02:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of notability Corpx 04:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • dont Deleate they are WWE Divas — 121.219.251.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Tis true. They recently hired these two ladies and they are currently learning to take small bumps down in FCW. Падший ангел 21:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep They were in the Diva Search, and they're going to be in the WWE Divas 2007 Magazine. AquariusBoy01 11 August 2007
  • Delete, as long as they haven't made the cut at WWE developmental and get some mainstream air time, they will remain unnotable. Future possible notability doesn't count.--Atlan (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with Atlan, until they do not get some airtime on WWE TV they will remain unnotable. There is lack of information about them to make an article about them Art 281 23:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:V, as there are no reliable sources cited that significantly discuss the subject to evidence notability. -- But|seriously|folks  06:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The were in the Diva Search, they are in the 2007 Divas magazine- User:Spike7000
  • Delete, per lack of notability. RabidWolf 20:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Very STRONG KEEP Diva Search. Divas Magazine. WWE. Wrestlers. FSW. Etc. Heck, they are more notable than 80% of the pornstar pages on here. The Rypcord. 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please take a look at the article before closing the debate. They may have partipated in the 2006 Diva Search, but they didn't even make the top 8. The Divas Magazine apparently isn't notable enough for its own article, and this year's issue didn't come out until today. They were recently hired and are still in training. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  17:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. DrWarpMind 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nikki311 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete just like every male who's had a developmental contract but not called up to the main roster. having a Developmental deal doesn't in itself make you notable, you'd have to do more - not making the cut for the 2006 Diva search doesn't sound like it's enough for notability MPJ-DK 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for now - recreate if they debut in FCW. Davnel03 19:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt per nomination. Burntsauce 20:40, 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 Delete. — Scientizzle 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beer can Chicken

Beer can Chicken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is a how-to guide, and has been transwikied. Oli Filth 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete WP is not a recipe book guide and also per argument by nom.--JForget 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't this be {{db-transwiki}}'d? At any rate, as much as WP:ILIKEIT, this isn't for here - and frankly, I like my article on this on Everything2 better. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to indirect grilling, perhaps after correcting capitalization. --Dhartung | Talk 05:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Clubjuggle 02:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article can be re-written to describe how it's done, not how to do it, and thus no longer violate WP:HOWTO. spazure (contribs) 09:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because Wikipedia shouldn't have instructions on how to do stuff, and even if it was rewritten to not be like a recipe guide, it would be non-notable. Zuxtron 01:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a recipe guide or how-to-guide, and the capitalization is wrong. Beer can chicken is already a redirect. Information about beer can chicken is already present on Drunken chicken and indirect grilling. --Pixelface 08:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable and unencyclopedic. --Moonriddengirl 13:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Even though I've had "Beer can Chicken", this should be deleted as it's on other pages and redirected elsewhere.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WaltonOne 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science project

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

The entire article is a how-to guide. Oli Filth 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Science fair, possibly transwiki current contents somewhere. A how-to on planning a good science project is certainly useful, but isn't really an encyclopedia topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • delete a very biased description. Different schools have different criteria. Mukadderat 02:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per Andrew Lenahan. The article, written as a guide in second person, would require a complete rewrite from scratch to fall within Wikipedia's boundaries. Shalom Hello 05:57, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of online-gaming slang

List of online-gaming slang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Half of the entries in this article are actually general internet slang (e.g. leet, AFK, g2g). Many others are game-specific ('clothie', 'twink' etc are World of Warcraft only). Many others are original research and very rarely used (e.g. WMAO, YACK). Finally, this list is almost completely unsourced (not counting the "World of Warcraft glossary" as a source), as opposed to list of internet slang phrases, which has a source for every entry. I propose merging any relevant entries with list of internet slang phrases, provided a source can be found, or deleting this entirely. Melsaran 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As creator of the article I do not think that it should be merged, as many of the items are of little interest to those who would want to view the 'internet slang' article. It was originally split from the 'internet slang' page because that page was getting very long, and so I created several different pages to suit different aspects. If anything, the page should be stripped down to those phrases which are referenced. :) —porges(talk) 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
How much would be left when we delete game-specific slang, unsourced entries, general internet slang, and unused OR words? Melsaran 22:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Not much, but I don't think it should be part of list of internet slang because of the minority appeal of the items. On the other hand, if the article is deleted, this stuff will make it into that article (for want of its own)... thus why I think it should remain separate. —porges(talk) 00:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems to me that there isn't an argument for deletion here that wouldn't really apply to List of internet slang phrases. Duplicate entries, lack of individual sources, rare terms is a clean-up concern, same with merging, not a deletion one. It might also be worth looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet slang phrases and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMORPG terms and acronyms 2. Or perhaps start a discussion regarding the state of Category:Glossaries. FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • BTW, I would strongly suggest closing this discussion and trying a merge discussion first, unless you really believe it should be deleted, as opposed to the other things you're suggesting. FrozenPurpleCube 02:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • There's probably very little to merge, as everything in list of internet slang phrases must be sourced, and a "World of Warcraft glossary" isn't really a valid source. Melsaran 10:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, if there's little to merge, then it'll be an easy job of merging. And um, the WOW glossary is on worldofwarcraft.com. That's an official site owned by Blizzard Entertainment. I could understand reasonable caution in regards to content about Blizzard on their websites, but I see no reason not to consider them a reliable source, especially in regards to something which is clearly within their field. Really, I don't see why on earth you'd not consider it a valid source. FrozenPurpleCube 12:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Ehm, that's because it is WoW-specific slang (e.g. "clothie" = a character wearing cloth armour = only in WoW). Game-specific slang shouldn't be included in a general "list of online-gaming slang", and a separate article on List of World of Warcraft slang is probably not notable enough/too in-depth (I think there must be such an article on WoWWiki). Melsaran 12:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, thank you for explaining your position more clearly, now I can address it properly. WOW is an online game, so therefore slang in it is actually slang used in online gaming. There is subject-specific slang, which would be recognizable by its focus, but there's plenty of slang on the glossary that is clearly not WOW-specific. You may need a background in these games to be able to tell the difference, and there may be some tough cases, but it's not what I'd consider a major problem. Besides, as WOW is one of the (if not the) largest populations in online games, it's clearly a subject to cover. I don't know that it'd be a page on its own, or even a subsection of one, but that's not being asked for here anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 13:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
              • But if we include specific slang for every game, the list will become hugely unorganised, with all kinds of terms that have little to do with each other in one list. Then you should fork the game-specific words to a separate list, and while I personally, as an inclusionist, don't have a problem with such lists, I don't think that there is a community consensus to have such in-depth lists ("Wikipedia is not a game guide", etc). (As a sidenote, I played WoW for two years, and have completed Molten Core, etc, so I'm not really unfamiliar with the terms) Melsaran 13:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Your concerns are editing ones, not ones with the source though. There are some general-purpose gaming terms on the glossary by Blizzard, and some that are game-specific. Deciding what to include or not? A reasonable question, but primarily a question of editing if the concept of the list is itself valid. Personally, I think there's more of a genre problem than a game-specific problem anyway. MMORPGS versus RTS versus FPS versus whatever else there is. FrozenPurpleCube 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • delete no encyclopedic value, notability & verifiability problems. Mukadderat 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Two out of the three are easy to meet. [6][7][8][9]. Really, neither verifiability or notability make good arguments here, they're easily refuted. You'd be better off explaining what you mean by "no encyclopedic value" . FrozenPurpleCube 02:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It looks to me that only the terms from wow are sourced, and the rest is just WP:OR or sourced from a non-reliable source. If we strip it down, it'll just have the terms from WOW in it and I dont believe there is notability for a WOW glossary here. This type of stuff belongs in a specialized gamer encyclopedia Corpx 04:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I personally think the topic is becoming overgrown with WP:OR. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As listcruft, OR, and all arguments given above. PS.. "clothie" and "squishie" aren't just in WoW, they're in pretty much any game that has cloth-wearing classes (including AD&D). spazure (contribs) 09:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Merge Unless WP is a dictionary, this should be deleted or merged. --Mnemnoch 05:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete!! I see this has a lot of WP:OR and, thats all I have to say. --♫Twinkler4♫ (Talk to me!) 16:21, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christine Young

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Epbr123 21:06, 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. Singularity 01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messaging as a service

Messaging as a service (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reads like an essay rather than an article. Appears to be original research, is unsourced and an orphan. Inshort, this requires too much work to correct and (in the event that we need this article) we would be better off starting again. Spartaz Humbug! 20:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete I've nothing to add to the nom, except to contribute to making it clear that there is a consensus that this article doesn't belong in wp. Guinness 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete This essay does not contain information that needs an individual article. It reads well in spots but does not assert a level of importance to retain the material. --Stormbay 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete nonencyclopedic Mukadderat 02:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Or total re-write. Reads like an essay in meaningless buzzwords. No references. --Escape Orbit 16:47, 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. ck lostsword•T•C 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bratz Songs

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

Highly indiscriminate collection of information, violates WP:LIST and WP:NOT#INFO. wikipediatrix 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom and as completely redendant to the articles on the various listed albums that already exist. No logical single redirect target. Otto4711 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete a random list of "Bratz Songs" that is not required. --Stormbay 02:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is elsewhere on WP and redundant. --Mnemnoch 05:14, 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 userfied to User:Sambc/Casey William Hardison per user request; there is an apparent consensus that the article, as currently written, is inappropriate per WP:BLP1E; however, WP:BLP1E considerations do not apply to the user namespace. WP:BLP does apply to the user namespace, but only to the extent of requiring all controversial information concerning living persons to be well-sourced, and prohibiting the creation of outright attack pages (well-sourced or not); the content of this article is acceptable in the user namespace, meeting the limited requirements of WP:BLP there. Userfication is favored in light of the fact that Sambc credibly claims that the content of this article may be useful in another article, in a context not offending the requirements of WP:BLP1E. Per the author attribution requirements of the GFDL, the page history of this article must be retained for its content to be merged to another article. John254 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

note: cross-namespace redirect deleted after userfication. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casey William Hardison

Casey William Hardison (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The subject's court case and appeal were reported, according to gnews archives, but that reporting appears to be limited only to the days immediately following those events. It seems that there has been no reporting since. If the case results in significant changes, which it has not to date, an article may be justified. For now, when we discount the trivial news reporting, there's nothing much left. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Note - I went ahead and blanked the article. The last full version from the history can be viewed here. - Crockspot 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I unblanked it as there was no consensus to make an exception to the "don't blank when under AFD" rule. SamBC(talk) 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I am inclined to invoke WP:IGNORE and reblank, per the spirit and intent of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLP1E. If no one else has an objection, I will do so. - Crockspot 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that 1 person on each side of the question doesn't really make anything like consensus, and WP:IAR is only about improving the encyclopedia; I would suggest a review of WP:WIARM. I can see the arguments for blanking, and I can see arguments against, and I think there's no need to be hasty as there's no suggestion of anything being untrue. The links provided aren't to reliable sources, admittedly, but that doesn't mean there aren't any, and the fact that there's several gives one the clue that it may well be accurate. I'm currently reviewing a very large number of google results to find reliable coverage, and it would seem premature to blank without this check. Remember, assume good faith SamBC(talk) 23:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not questioning your good faith. I'm thinking of WWJD. (What would Jimbo do?). He would blank it. This article should have just been speedied, and very nearly was. The text is available at the link above, and WP:V requires us to remove any unsourced material, and WP:BLP guides us to do it without discussion or consensus-building. Those things override any instruction stated in a template. - Crockspot 23:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Some are guided by WWJW. (What would Jesus Wiki?). -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Neutral pending improvements - NN, no sources, attack page, no good history to revert to. - Crockspot 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There are links to a variety of things online that indicate that the essential detail of the article is true, and unless I've misread the BLP complaint the problem isn't that it's defaming the subject. I'm not saying keep, nor delete, but it doesn't seem to be fair to call it an attack page. SamBC(talk) 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a variety of things online that indicate all sorts of things. That does not address the fact that not a single reliable source is cited in the article. It says a variety of things that if untrue, are very very bad. Even if it were to be magically well sourced, it would still violate WP:BLP1E. - Crockspot 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've found two BBC reports, and I'm on the trail of at least one from the local paper, establishing the facts of the case (the arrests, the court judgement, and so on). I will edit the article to be much more NPOV and as verifiable as I can once I've rounded them up (in the coming hours). SamBC(talk) 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll hold off blanking then, so you can work on it. But unless you can get the article to assert that it is not in violation of WP:BLP1E, I'm still supporting a speedy deletion. - Crockspot 23:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the fact that he has written lots of (ethically dubious) articles on the subject of the right to take mind-altering substances ought to help with that... along with the fact that his arrest made the news, and then it was still thought of as important by the time he was sentenced, as that was reported as well. SamBC(talk) 23:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, he's not really an academic, so any judgement under notability guidelines will have to be a bit fudged as he doesn't really fit into any boxes. I've made some progress: assuming that I source most of the pointful stuff marked as needing a source, what do you think of it so far? The activism and research needs expanding, but I'm working on that now. SamBC(talk) 02:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm done for the night; I've removed the inuse tag, but I imagine I'll put it back at some point tomorrow to finish off, or at least to do enough to address concerns as best I can. SamBC(talk) 02:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see the changes do anything to address the problems that led to this being here. The reporting remains fairly minor, still limited to the case and appeal. What we need is something showing that Hardison's case has garnered more independent interest than that, otherwise BLP1E is very much relevant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not simply an article about a dope head but covers a man who is notable because of the court case he chose to fight. He fought this case all the way to the House of Lords using novel, and ultimately unsuccessful, legal arguments about the nature of drug taking. This article is well sourced from the BBC and others and does not defame the subject in any way. He is an outspoken advocate of drug use, this is hardly libel to point that out. This BLP blanking of articles is getting ridiculous in my humble opinion, the details of the court cases and legal appeals are matters of public record. The legal ramifications of this case go beyond the simple facts of the man's imprisonment. Wikipedia is not censored. Nick mallory 03:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • In Crockspot's defence, when the article was blanked there were no inline citations or real references, apart from a few external links; I've since added the BBC reference, and others, and made substantial edits to change tone and improve NPOV, and Crockspot has agreed not to blank while it's worked on. SamBC(talk) 03:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article says he is big in the (undefined) "entheogenic" movement, but the only Wikipedia article related to that is an article about a band. Even the reference cited does not define it. Being known for an unknown and undefined neologism is not impressive. Being a doper is not inherently notable. Edison 04:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Please check out entheogen for at least a basic idea. That should be what's linked from the article. It's not ideal, but it's the most appropriate current link. SamBC(talk) 04:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete From reading the article, I do not think this is "historically notable" per WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 04:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Representing himself, Hardison made a bunch of crazy arguments regarding the criminal charges against him. He's definintely not the first to do that. Cap'n Walker 15:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete non notable person, as per WP:BLP1E. We do not need an article on every single person that got arrested for a drug-related offense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment not every single person who's arrested for a drug-related defence: a) makes the national news more than once, b) attempts to appeal that the law in illegal, c) has had work on psychadelics and entheogenics published. Look back at the article in a couple of hours for explanations and sources (nothing else is eating my WP time tonight). SamBC(talk) 00:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I will take a look, but the article as written is about an arrest, and about a person who is not notable besides that.A worthy speedy candidate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Just on a point of order (in the debating sense), but it might be a worthy deletion candidate (per WP:N, as you imply), it just doesn't meet any of the WP:CSD criteria for speedy deletion, which (as the policy states) are to be applied narrowly. Suggesting that this article is speediable just encourages misunderstanding. As an admin, you really ought to know that. SamBC(talk) 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I believe there's now enough to satisfy WP:N and WP:V concerns (and thus by implication WP:BLP), but I'm happy to hear more concerns. Given the change in the article since first listing at AfD (and thus since I got going on it), I would also suggest starting the AfD process again to be clear of arguments that (arguably) no longer apply. SamBC(talk) 01:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree. The person is not notable, the arrest is one of thousands, and the article is as unencyclopedic as you can get. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral pending improvement - The article is not a biography. There is little to no early life information or career infomation. Most of the text in the article relates to the illegal activities events, which gives undue weight to the events in the context of the individual. This, in turn, raises WP:BLP1E issues. However, I don't think Casey William Hardison is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, so WP:BLP1E is not a reason to delete the article. There are enought references cited, so it is clear that the topic meet WP:N. That still does not make the article a biography and I am concerned about giving undue weight to the cirminal convictions in the context of his overall life. For those desiring to improve the article, please use Template:Biography to improve the article. Once that is done, please feel free to post on my talk page to revisit my position in this AfD. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the sources indicate notability. Everyking 07:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Move. Explanation: Is the case R. v. Casey Hardison notable? If so, then the page should be moved there, and adequately sourced to demonstrate notability. Casey William Hardison himself is not notable, even if his criminal case is. Compare: Roy Pearson (not notable, and thus a redirect) and Pearson v. Chung (notable). However, R. v. Casey Hardison is not notable. The House of Lords refused to consider the appeal. Perhaps the European Court of Human Rights will issue a landmark ruling striking down every drug law, in which case this case will be notable, but this is also exceedingly unlikely and, in any event, WP:CRYSTAL. THF 10:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm switching from neutral to delete, because as a biography, it does not meet notability guidelines. THF makes a very good point. The court case may or may not be notable, but the person certainly seems not to be. - Crockspot 04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question I'm a little puzzled that people seem to be missing the second aspect of notability, that of activism and writing in the entheogenic (or, to put it another way, pro-psychadelic) community. Does this section need to be expanded, or better sourced or something? The court case is not the only claim to notability. SamBC(talk) 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, if there was notability asserted outside of the drug arrest, I would be inclined to keep. I have stated this several times, but that notability still is not asserted, either to WP:BIO or WP:PROF standards. - Crockspot 17:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • On further consideration of this, I do not oppose deletion, but request userfication for use in developing a better article on the modern entheogenic movement (not currently covered nontrivially but such things as Cognitive liberty and Entheogen), which it will make a good section for. If people think it makes sense, I'll userfy it myself and the redirect can be speedily deleted as housekeeping, but I won't do that before an admin talks to me, because the article shouldn't be blanked before closure. Someone else might still bring up something relevant that I haven't found. SamBC(talk) 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No need to userfy. Just copy the text of the current article and save it in your computer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't write the whole thing, so it would seem to be a GFDL requirement to keep the article and build the new article around it, to maintain contribution attributions. There seems no reason not to userfy, seeing as there seems no longer to be any serious BLP concerns (like verifiability) - it's just notability at issue. SamBC(talk) 22:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The history can be merged back later. That's not a problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It would seem easier to just move the article to a subpage of my userpage in the first place, and delete the redirect. Is there some reason not to? It's easier from my point of view for it to be userfied, because I can edit it and actually see what I'm doing, rather than editing raw wikitext. SamBC(talk) 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. Let;s wait until this AfD is closed and ask the admin closing to enact that move. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan to me. - Crockspot 23:33, 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 - Nabla 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fesu (rapper)

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

Subject was briefly signed to a defunct MCA division, has three albums from "small, independent" labels. Not speediable, but I have serious concerns whether he meets WP:MUSIC. Delete. Xoloz 20:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - I can't find any substantive reliable sources indicating that he was notable; the one album on the now-defunct MCA label might help with regards to WP:MUSIC, but without the references, it doesn't really matter. Happy to reconsider if WP:RS is met. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable, more suited to MySpace than an encyclopaedia. WebHamster 08:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable rapper fails WP:MUSIC and biographical guidelines. Burntsauce 17:07, 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 info, MERGED to Richard Gephardt. (I did a "quick merge") - Nabla 01:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard A. Gephardt Papers Project

Richard A. Gephardt Papers Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about the personal papers project of Richard Gephardt. Notability is not transferable--while the papers' subject is notable, the project isn't. Blueboy96 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge Project is worth a paragraph in the Congressman's article, certainly. "Legacies" of famous persons are frequently mentioned at the end of their biographies. Xoloz 20:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge though a paragraph might be a bit much. State and university libraries often act as repositories of the papers of prominent individuals and many times these are grant-funded, so there is nothing particularly notable about this project. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is very common from one POV of view (there are many archives of famous folks), and very uncommon from another (it seems to be the only one for Dick!) -- hence, the merge to him, as his admirers (and detractors) are likely to find it a unique resource. Xoloz 21:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Xoloz and Dhartung. As a general observation, biographical articles about public figures who have significant collections of papers available for research should mention this fact, if possible with a link to the finding aid for the collection, which is often available online. Newyorkbrad 00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Exactly, this is similar to a source/topic confusion, where an editor believes that because something fulfills the WP:RS criteria it is WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 05:30, 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 keep per the added sources by Jakew. Non-admin closure; I believe the article would not have been listed for deletion if it originally looked the way it looks now. Shalom Hello 17:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HPTi

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

I'm not comfortable speedy deleting this (as the government work is an assertion of notability), but this thing has no sources, failing WP:V badly. Delete. Xoloz 20:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep but source. The NOAA supercomputer (named Jet) is somewhat notable and the project has received coverage. I don't think the other things are particularly notable or interesting, though. --Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • FYI, we have an image of the computer but no article for it specifically. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, though some sourcing & editing is needed. I've added a couple of sources, as a start. Jakew 21:17, 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 Song not even yet published, let alone sourced. Discussion on talk whether the song even exists is also inconclusive. Redirect to article not mentioning it does not seem to be an option to me. Feel free to recreate *when* the single/video comes out and secondary sources exist - Nabla 01:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crowd Control (song)

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

Supposed future single release, pure speculation, no reliable sources to confirm this, the article basically has nothing at this point. I'd suggest merge to an album article, but that information is not here either. - eo 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Lack of sources. However, if the actually song comes out in the future, then we can bring this back. Ô 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to FutureSex/LoveSounds. The MTV News link at the bottom of the article indicates the song exists (so we can use it in the album article), but it doesn't support any of the assertions the article makes about a forthcoming single release. A simple mention of the song in the FutureSex/LoveSounds and Loose (album) articles will do. Extraordinary Machine 13:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Edit Maybe just take the part out of the video and it being a single for now (since it will be later though) and just leave the mtv article. Liloallen19 4:30, 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 - Nabla 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jenaro garcia

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

nonnotable military man, with lots of simple medals `'Míkka 19:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. There's nothing in the article that even suggests notability. Cap'n Walker 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - worthy career, but I can't find any verification that marks him out as more notable than any other career soldier. Gordonofcartoon 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • While the eight Bronze Stars look pretty impressive, to have an article about him, someone else would have had to write about him someplace to give us reliable sources to work from. I couldn't find anything to provide that verification. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The only Ghits for "Jenaro Garcia" + "bronze star" are this article and an apparently unrelated man. [10]. Edward321 01:36, 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. — Deckiller 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario Palace

Super Mario Palace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fancruft. Pleasehelp 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable, unsourced, and basically fancruft. Unless somebody vastly improved the article (unlikely), I recommend deletion.--PrestonH 19:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Exactly 5 Google hits--non-notable fancruft. Blueboy96 20:08, 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 DELETE - Nabla 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rina Palma

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

vanity, freshly graduated fashion designer `'Míkka 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable vanity. Jdcooper 19:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - 24 Google hits, a few to people other than the subject, and no substantial media coverage. Maybe if her career takes off it'll change, but right now, not notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:34, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jónas Aðalsteinsson

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

Non-notable biographical article. Fails WP:N bigstyle. Prod tag removed by independent editor, but the man is just a lawyer, no assertion of notability. Google search agrees. Jdcooper 18:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Jdcooper 18:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources can be provided--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment he may be important in Iceland, but I cannot tell from the article--is there a project to notify?DGG (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've never heard of him. Haukur 17:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. He is a relative bigshot within Icelandic legal circles but those circles are not that large. --Bjarki 16:46, 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 - Nabla 01:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin McCullough

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

Does not meet WP:N. Article created by SPA, likely vanity post. McCullough has been the subject of a Kentucky Post article, but I do not feel this is enough to warrant an entire Wikipedia page especially as it the Post article is more or less a human interest piece. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN. Daniel J. Leivick 18:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Kevin has ... over 200 subscribers to his annual report on the Kentucky Derby". Fails WP:N per nom, and assertion of "notability" only achieved via peacock words. Which don't count. Jdcooper 18:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only possible notability here is really for the newsletter itself. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scot Young Research

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

I created this article after it had already been deleted, which is OK as I provided sources. However, I'm not sure that the subject of this article has been the subject of non-trivial, multiple reliable published sources. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral - The 2 links there that show their profile on the group's site are not sources to establish notability, as they are members in the organization. Weak hits in google news, so I'm not sure Corpx 04:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's interesting, more sources that could be added to establish notability. The thing is that this company's products are very widely used - I've seen them in shops, hotels, restaurants, offices, universities, almost everywhere.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete a minor supplier of cleaning supplies, and that they operate in several countries does not make them notable. Zero third party references.DGG (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Harlowraman 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

log (add to top of list)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nabla 01:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cal Lyall

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. No notability is apparent on internet (conflict of interest as well). The Evil Spartan 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I've seen his collaborator Damo Suzuki three times and being affiliated with him is far from notability as he performs with different musicians in every city.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, definite COI problems (author's user name is same as company linked to in article) Realkyhick 18:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per The Evil Spartan clearly WP:COI Harlowraman 01:11, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeepers Crow

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

Non-notable expression. Sources cited are mainly dictionaries, and as we all know, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also a slice of spam: article apparently was created largely to promote a non-notable album by this name. Contested prod. Realkyhick 17:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef. Not really common enough to redirect to minced oath, either. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced dicdef, apparently little hope of being anything more. Jakew 21:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete only useful for Wikitionary.JForget 23:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or transfer to Wiktionary No reason to delete. Fg2 10:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I wouldn't expect that Wiktionary would accept this (probably non-notable), still, it's a dictdef. Melsaran 12:01, 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 No consensus. Article will remain for now. VoltronForce 03:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of S.H.E covers and parodies

  • Delete - per extensive precedent, lists of cover songs are not notable. If a particular cover song is notable then it should be mentioned in an article for the song. Otto4711 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think you've read the article at all. Under the cover section, it says that cover songs have actually won awards (see also List of S.H.E Awards). This list is here because the group is actually NOTABLE for covering songs (see S.H.E#Lack of originality). Seeing as S.H.E is already a notable group in Taiwan (i.e. the ROC), then it would be expected that these covers also made regular appearances on the radio, which, according to this, this, this, this, and this, is in fact the case. It would really help if you actually started reading the article, thanks. Pandacomics 19:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • First off, keep a civil tongue in your head. As for your specific objection, any song by S.H.E that's won an award is notable in and of itself and should either be added to the band's discography or have an article written about it. A list of every song they've covered is not encyclopedic. Otto4711 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Then in this situation, your vote would be to Merge with S.H.E discography. Pandacomics 22:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain I am not familiar with the precedent, but I'm not familiar with S.H.E either. All I know about them came from Wikipedia. --Ideogram 20:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, I shall reiterate once again that the group is notable for covering songs by other artists. There was an article in the Beijing Times that I'd gladly share with you that essentially says "Lots of [Chinese] artists have covered songs, but the extent that S.H.E has covered songs is just disgusting." This isn't the same as the other artists you provided, who compose the majority of their own work, and use covers simply to complement their other songs. S.H.E's first single as a cover. The lead single for their second album was also a cover. Both of their compilation albums have two covers. Pandacomics 22:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge per Panda. I think a complete list of songs they released would fit in the discography. Kappa 09:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this list would be better included in a complete discography. --Ideogram 13:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into S.H.E discography. --musicpvm 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valuable cultural artifact - Britney Spears and J.D. Souther both in Chinese? clearly notable. Wasted Time R 03:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As it shows the difference of original songs and also Covers and Parodies in all S.H.E's album. Somemore it shows the original songs which is quite hard to get this information online.Reinhard tan 02:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge for the reasons given by Reinhard tan. This group may be very cheesy, but they are very significant in Mandopop, and the article helps explain an important aspect of their success. If merged into the discography, no information should be lost. Matt 04:52, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race science

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

This is an obvious POV fork from Scientific racism. The two references invoked, Stephen Jay Gould and The Bell Curve, are already cited in Scientific racism. Tazmaniacs 17:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Note: I think the best issue is to merge it into "Scientific racism," as "Race Science" (and "Academic Racism") are all synonyms ([11], first paragraph, etc.) Tazmaniacs 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. What I could understand of it was duplicative of the SR article. Cap'n Walker 18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant to Scientific racism. Bigdaddy1981 20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this article is supported by numerous reliable independent sources. There is a pre-existing merge proposal which should be separately dealt with. If the merge is not considered appropriate, only then should the article be judged on its own merits. As it stands, this subject is sufficiently cited to establish notability - npov problems are not sufficient for deletion. Skomorokh incite 14:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. A merge was proposed and seems to have been rejected. NPOV in itself is not sufficient for deletion, but POV fork is: "As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion...The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article". Scientific racism is that existing article, and it is impossible to contrast "Race science" with "Scientific racism." The sources used in the article are precisely two of the most famous sources used in "Scientific racism". Tazmaniacs 15:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that rationale is untenable. I see only three possibilities:
  1. Race science should be deleted as a POV fork. RS contains no material worthy of inclusion in Scientific racism.
  2. Race science ought to be merged with Scientific racism. That is, RS contains some valuable information (not worthy of deletion) but the subjects largely overlap.
  3. The subjects are distinct, and RS is worthy of an article on its own.
Do you accept that these are the options available?
My assessment is as follows. The sources in the RS article are reliable and independent, and contain noon-trivial coverage of the subject. This rules out the "delete as POV fork" option. Between the other two options, the correct place for discussion is a merge proposal on the talkpage. Skomorokh incite 15:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in Race science which Scientific racism does not already cover & includes. SR already dealt with Stephen Jay Gould and with J. Philippe Rushton. The only info in RS which is not in SR is the paragraph on Richard Lewontin, which besides lacking a proper reference & being more than disputable in its current form, belongs to the article race. Thus, yes, deletion is the appropriate course to follow. Tazmaniacs 11:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some information seems good are not in the another page, delete the page we may lose the information. Why don't we merge the pages and make a redirect for one of the page over delete it?Srtsopid08167 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 08:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] StarCraft: Revelations

StarCraft: Revelations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. No reliable sources attest to the notability of the story. Otto4711 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

*Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep - The Salon and IGN stories provides some sources. The article is still a mess needs cleanup. -- Whpq 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a published short story though, and it was the cover of the magazine it was published in. See [12] for one example. Is that an acceptable reliable source? Or [13]? Perhaps [14]? I can see this stuff isn't in the article now, but I'll fix it. FrozenPurpleCube 20:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but why is it a notable short story? There are literally millions of published short stories out there, and they are not all notable solely for being published. --Haemo 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, I believe it's considered notable because it meets, if weakly: "The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." (The standard from WP:BK, should obviously be applicable to a short story). Does that answer your question? I'm wondering did you miss those sources somehow? FrozenPurpleCube 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. Notable short story, subject of independent secondary coverage in reliable sources. JulesH 11:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article has potential for good, notable content, but no one has supplied such content or attempted to. Currently it should be deleted, but it could be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Clawed One (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as per nom Harlowraman 23:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weaklazyliar

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

Atlanta band. Asserts notability (use of songs in TV shows), but no sources. Only news sources I could find were short mentions in local Atlanta alternative newspapers. 252 unique Google hits. NawlinWiki 17:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Bleh, the article's brutal, but the subject may squeak by. I've found these articles and a review, all in what might be referred to as 'alternative' publications, but also some small confirmation that their stuff has been used in movies and TV shows, which covers both criteria 1 and 10 of WP:MUSIC to some extent. Weak keep - but the article needs a total rebuild. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom no sources and not notable Harlowraman 23:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drumtar

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

Non-notable. Article contains no sources substantiating notability, mentions no notable musicians who have used the instrument, and no notable tracks on which the instrument has been used. A Google search returned plenty of results for an unrelated MIDI controller, but nothing about this particular instrument. Article was deprodded on the grounds that all instruments are inherently notable. Nick Graves 17:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, looks like a DIY project that got out of hand. Realkyhick 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The article is unreferenced, the nominator claimed he could not find references, and depending on how you define "musical instruments", they are not all inherently notable. Shalom Hello 05:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as this needs to be looked at, by at least someone who knows musical instruments. Randall O 08:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Randall O
    • Comment: What do you mean? I know musical instruments. I've never heard of this one. The picture shows an obviously homemade contraption. No one has yet found any source documenting that this instrument is more than someone's weekend garage project. Without such a source, we can only conclude that it is non-notable, and therefore an unsuitable candidate for its own Wikipedia article. Nick Graves 09:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems to be made up one day. I'm pretty well versed on instrumentation myself, but I don't know about this one. No relevant Google hits. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nick Graves. --Mperry 01:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • delete, DIY projects are not notable. Nuttah68 13:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like everything else, instruments are only notable if they are described in multiple independent sources. Rigadoun (talk) 17:33, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunken Defense

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

Delete - probably speedyable but since people like the video games I thought it'd best come here. No assertion of notability in the article. Don't appear to be reliable sources establishing notability. Article has been tagged as unreferenced since January. Has some serious game guide issues. Otto4711 17:08, 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 delete. Singularity 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Island Defense

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

This is an individual user-created map played in Warcraft III. Not only is it original research, but it also has doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sdornan 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, there's no evidence offered that anyone other than the creators know or care about this map, but buried within the text I suppose "taken the idea to the next level" is an assertion of notability, so well done on spotting it. Iain99 10:52, 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. Singularity 01:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liz Looker

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

Non-notable artist. Page created by author who is involved with serious WP:WALL problems (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leigh_Casino&action=history, and all the contributors contributions), thus a likely WP:COI is involved. In any case, the artist is non-notable. The Evil Spartan 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as insufficiently sourced (and I agree that there appears to be sockpuppetry involved - same bunch of new usernames weaving in and out of a small group of articles). But the important bit is the lack of sources about her. The one third-party source provided is a blog posting that looks like a thinly-veiled press release. Gordonofcartoon 20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete COI issues very likely, by the looks of things. But non-notability is what really counts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom .Harlowraman 23:30, 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 speedily deleted as spam, with a reminder to not edit Wikipedia from the wireless at the bar. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobo Lobo

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

combination of patent nonsense and self-promotion DCE 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Apparently the author wrote this during happy hour. Not notable, half gibberish. Realkyhick 18:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep seems notable Delete, per both above. Jdcooper 19:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Same reasons as above. I imagine a bar seems a lot more notable when one is drunk. Sxeptomaniac 22:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable sources more of self promotion. Harlowraman 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as spam. Maybe nonsensical spam. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:48, 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 keep. Singularity 01:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larisa Arap

  • I suggest to remove this clause. It does not represent encyclopaedic value. Not big enough event. This person practically was not known in city in which lives. Propably a self-proclaimed.--Jaro.p 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ??? This article is so poorly written that it's almost impossible to tell what exactly it's about. The "assertion of notability" is the weirdest I've ever seen: "For July-August, 2007, the searchch for Larisa Arap had returned 104 entries; the searchch for Лариса Арап had returned 105 entries. Most of these entries are blogs, but there are tens of articles in serious newspapers and journals. Mainly, Larisa Arap is discussed in Russian, Ukrainian and English. Such a wide publicity requires serious analysis." Is this a joke??? --Targeman 17:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible speedy as patent nonsense. I would speculate on notability, but I can't figure the bloody thing out at all. Realkyhick 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Users 62.105.155.114 and Jaro.p had suggesed deletion of the article the same day it was created. This indicates that their motivation has political reasons. The article itself is neutral. Targeman: this is not joke; not 104 entries, but 10^4 entries; not 105 entries, but 10^5 entries. (Please confirm if your graphical interface allows to see the difference between 105 and 10^5=100000). In addition, since that time, the number of entries twiced; in addition, we should count also the entries for "Larissa Arap" (similar order of magnitude). Sorry, I late answering the question by Targeman (I just saw the error in his/her estimates), but it is not yet too late. Please, remove the unappropriate tag. dima 00:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but it needs blanking and rewriting by editors who realise this is the English language Wikipedia. Google News finds plenty of references to the story (eg BBC. She's a political activist who is detained in a Russian hospital. Gordonofcartoon 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The article appears to have been written by someone whose mother tongue is other than English. The subject does get coverage in a number of media outlets including the Washington Post, New York Sun, the BBC, and others, as well as 12,000 regular Google hits. I suspect there's notability, but it's not likely to be expressed in this version. Start fresh might be the best approach - but, it appears to be a continuing situation, so that might throw things off a bit. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep and rewrite per the two above me. --Sethacus 21:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep This is current event. Sure English needs some work. Any volunteers? User:Abune 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure if the person has any historic notability to get past WP:NOT#NEWS. I could not gather enough from the article to make a judgment Corpx 04:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. The first dratf is not perfect. If you see errors, indicate them at the page of discussion, not here. As for the Russian version, the same users suggest the removal (удалить) and asphyxia (удавить), and then edit the paper, justifying the removal. You have no need to speak Russian in order to check this; please, do it now, while the paper is available. dima 05:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep she became notable Alex Bakharev 05:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to Corpx. This seems to be a news story that has lasted over a month now. Radio Free Europe's website says she was detained on July 6. Outside of that, she seems "modestly" known for her work, in the realm of mental health, with the United Civil Front, a protest group led by Garry Kasparov.--Sethacus 05:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep more than enough sources. Just needs a translation in progress notice, DGG (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that the article isn't well written, especially concerning the language, however it's just matter of time to bring order to it. Note that it's current event and the article was created recently. The topic is pretty notable and has a lot of sources. And last but not least: please do not allow pro-Putin users censor English Wikipedia. RedAndr 15:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just spent a very large chunk of time attempting to fix the many errors. Obvious spelling errors, obvious tense errors, grammatical errors, and more and more I've come to suspect that this was copied from somewhere, and using some online translator (or babelfish, whatever the name) pasted into English. The misuse of so many basic errors, goes beyond a simple "poor English" writer. While I have no personal comments on the validity or the notability of the article's subject, here are my concerns:
  • It needs to be completely re-written by someone who speaks the language of origin, and has an advanced grasp of English. The current article is extremely difficult to follow, even after I've fixed most of the obvious, egregious errors.
  • It needs someone to get English references into it. Unfortunately, the majority of the references are in a foreign language, and therefore of little use to the English reader who doesn't speak that language (and thereby unverifiable by English readers, as well).
  • The issue of WP:NOT#NEWS for now at least, it seems to be newsworthy. However, we are to consider the long-term historical notability of persons and events, and to that, only time will tell. If it does not remain notable in the historical perspective, the valid information could possibly be merged into another article, perhaps there is some article that details mistreatment of patients at certain facilities (I've no clue, just a thought), and it could be merged into that. Ariel♥Gold 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see this revision to compare current article with article at the time AfD was listed. I've done quite a bit of work and it looks quite different, so I thought I'd provide the link to the last revision prior to my undertaking the task of re-writing. (I'm still working on it with a Russian editor.)Ariel♥Gold 23:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important political dissident, widely known example of reintroduction of Soviet era political punishment in Russia.--Molobo 06:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is now much clearer and there are reliable sources in English[15] for verification. It's really just a question in my mind, since the article is about a single event, Arap's detention, whether it is more appropriate for Wikinews but clearly if the article can be filled out with other information about Arap, it can become a encyclopedic article. --Malcolmxl5 12:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A Google search shows coverage of the imprisonment of this political activest in major newspapers of the UK, the US, Turkey, France, and other countries. It is said to be a return to Soviet era false imprisonment of antigovernment activists in psychiatric hospitals without cause. The present Wikipedia article relies on text apparently written by non-native speakers of English working from mostly Russian newspapers. The case has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, and addresses the encyclopedic issue of the use of psychiatric hospotals to silence dissidents. This particular case seems notable in itself. The article can be improved by the efforts of fluent speakers of English who can use the following sources not yet referenced in the article about the forced hospitalization of Ms. Arap: See [16] The Independent, "Russian dissident 'forcibly detained in mental hospital'" by By Alastair Gee, 30 July 2007. See [17] "Activist sent to mental clinic: Russian opposition" in Washington Post, By Olesya Dmitracova, from the Reuters press wire service, Monday, July 30, 2007. See [18] "Russian dissidents called mentally ill. Soviet-era practice revived, activists say." by Alex Rodriguez, the Chicago Tribune, August 7, 2007. See [19] "Russian Dissident Forced Into Mental Hospital." by Adrian Blomfeld, The Daily Telegraph, (reprinted in the New York Sun) July 31, 2007. See [20] "U.S. Consul Not Planning to Visit Journalist Larisa Arap at Mental Hospital." Interfax wire service, 2 August 2007, 21:19 CDT. See [21] "Psychiatric abuse claim in Russia . Russia's official human rights investigator says it will investigate allegations of psychiatric abuse against an opposition activist." BBC news, Wednesday, 1 August 2007, 14:15 GMT 15:15 UK . See [22] "Appeal as Russian writer is held in psychiatric clinic." by Chris Stephen, The Scotsman, July 30, 2007. Edison 19:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd just like to make another comment. I've been working with Dima on the translation (on the article's talk page), and I've advised him/her that it would likely need re-writing, and I've promised that I'm willing to do that if the article is kept. I believe the article at this point, has notability to keep it, but perhaps in the future, would need to be merged into other articles, as suggested by Edison on the talk page. Edison brought in a great amount of valid, respected references for English, and I'd use those to re-write the article, and I'd remove all the Russian text that is there, as it is extraneous. I will not vote on this article, for the simple reason that I actually did not notice the AfD notice until after I'd started working on it, and at that point, I felt that to vote on it would be slightly COI-ish. However I would just like to assure anyone that I'm completely willing to write this, should the decision be made to keep it, and Domitori (Dima) is more than willing to help me with the initial translations from Russian to English when needed. He/She is actually extremely helpful, and can give the rough translation, after which I can convert into the article. I would also like to express gratitude to Edison for providing the many awesome links. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 20:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. Most probably, the article has been written by someone whose mother tongue is other than English. Regarding some events and persons from Russia, the findings in the web are not representative for the relevance. Some ongoing events are not well-known in the Western world, also due to the difficulty to acceed to not translated sources. --QIrus 07:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is noteworthy enough despite its poor translation. This case has been covered in several leading newspapers and is still in the public attention. --Hillock65 12:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above.Biophys 23:37, 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 CUBS WIN! CUBS WIN! CUBS WIN! Speedy keep; non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 06:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Bartman

Please delete, as with Matt Murphy (baseball fan), attempting to catch a baseball does not make one notable. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Murphy (baseball fan). Burntsauce 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Safe at first. This isn't the same thing. Bartman may have affected the outcome of a crucial playoff game. His action received widespread notice. Twenty years from now, people will still recognize his name; nobody will remember Murphy. Clarityfiend 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    You need to go read WP:COATRACK. The story is interesting, but that does not make this person notable. Burntsauce 17:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment See WP:COATRACK#What is not a coatrack. Clarityfiend 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (or alternatively redirect to 2003 National League Championship Series) It does need to be better sourced, but there are sources out there. I believe he was featured on ESPN's The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... (it was actually the pilot of the series) so there is outside coverage. I think the popular culture section needs to be trimmed or cut but that's no reason to delete. Phydend 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If you are going to say that this one event is not notable, considering its large notoriety in the world at large, then you would be hard pressed to say that other singular events are notable. Those events still have Wiki articles and thus, this one should too.Silver seren 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Even though this subject is notable, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid defense for keeping an article. Realkyhick 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
True, sorry. Under WP:Notability, it is notable if it has significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. BBC News and ESPN seem like reliable sources. Furthering that, I have a few more that can be added...
ESPN: Identity of "Cubs Fan"
USA Today: Fan Who Deflected Ball
Fox News: Statement from Bartman
The Seattle Times: Tickets For Bartman
I hope these help. Silver seren 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well, this is different. He significantly affects the outcome of a game. People will continue to recognize him. And if he receives widespread attention, he is notable. Chris! my talk 18:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as much as Bartman would love to see this deleted! It's one thing to catch the baseball that makes history; another thing entirely to make history by catching a baseball. Sidatio 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The article, not the subject. (Can you tell I'm a Cubs fan?) Seriously, the subject is clearly notable, his name continues to be used in many sports references, his action marked (wrongly or not) a turning point in a playoff series. His name is instantly recognizable by any contemporary baseball fan. Realkyhick 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep one of the most despised sports fans on earth. ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and several other news organizations regularly bring his name up. That makes him notable.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, clearly notable, mentioned in the Wall Street Journal and commented on (personally, not just the incident) by people like Letterman and Jeb Bush. That constitutes wide coverage in mainstream press. Jdcooper 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, easily passes WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Bartman, who became the most hated man in the world among fans of a certain baseball team, actually may have interfered with the conduct of the game. This is very different from Murphy who merely had a baseball fall into his possession. There were many articles in independent and reliable publications which talked about Bartman for his action. Seems like a "pointy" nomination.Edison 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Bartman is a much more notable subject than Murphy. Bartman is still talked about today for something almost four years ago. Also what he did affected the game and may have been a turning point. He is clearly notable. Matt Murphy is not notable, he just happened to catch a notable ballFrank Anchor 20:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This one's pretty much out of the park by now - should we close it out? Sidatio 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Comparing Bartman to Matt Murphy is apples and oranges. Murphy's catch didn't change anything but his life.--Sethacus 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Possibly ruined the outcome of the WS, hence keeping a curse still alive. Was covered by plenty of news sources, and is hated by some of Chicago. Very notable. I have a feeling that this was nominated just beacause of Matt Murphy. James Luftan contribs 21:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Apples and oranges. Bartman changed an important game and series. Murphy changed nothing.--Fizbin 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok I see that everyone voted keep here, while I said in Mike Murphy afd that his article too must go as like Murphy he only catch a historic ball, nothing more. In this case contributing to the extension of the Cubs curse of winless-seasons (not winning the WS I mean). I will not gonna cast really a vote here since it will not make a major difference, I would have personnally have merged it to any Cubs and MLB article related to the event or renamed it to the Bartman incident or any similar type articles and make Bartman a redirect. Other then that, he's not really that notable for his individual article--JForget 23:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep while I'm not sure that simply catching a ball would be article-worthy, this particular act (probably) changed the outcome of a crucial game, and is likely to be remembered, discussed, and written about for decades. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep... even though the nominator did say "Please". Poor Steve Bartman, destined to be part of Chicago Cubs' lore. As with Fred Merkel, Steve Bartman will be remembered a century from now. Only a sports fan would understand. Mandsford 23:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I can buy a WP:BLP1E argument for merging this into an appropriate Chicago Cubs season article (when created), or that year's NLCS article (can't remember off hand), but Bartman is someone who will be remembered for a very, very long time for what happened. The topic is notable. Resolute 02:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think there's plenty of historic notability for this fan to get past WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 04:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Move to dismiss and close, your honor." I think we've established a very clear consensus here. Realkyhick 05:28, 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 a7, no assertion of notability, one Ghit (this page). NawlinWiki 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Nazi Unity

Turkish Nazi Unity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nom - a self-proclaimed "party" with a self-proclaimed membership of 300 and no sources other than its own website hardly seems worthy of inclusion within an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for details. Rklawton 16:47, 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 delete a7, no assertion of notability, no indep. sources. NawlinWiki 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Bolshevik Party USA

National Bolshevik Party USA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonexistent party. Article National bolshevism says: "There is also a group of people in the United States called National Bolshevik Party USA which attempts to create an American National Bolshevik party." Wikipedia is not vehicle for their promo. Mukadderat 16:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per A7 - article does not assert notability of this party. Further, I can find no registration of this party anywhere, nor can I find a single verifiable source. To be honest, I only found two sources total - the party's website, and this article. So tagged. Sidatio 16:59, 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. Singularity 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agent Helix

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

Fancruft. No listing of who created the character, no mention of it in official or major fan sources, Google search only brings up 36 hits. Furthermore, only known picture is a screenshot from the game, whereas NCSoft/Cryptic usually release higher definition renders for their signature characters. IPAddressConflict 16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Am I wrong in assuming this is a fan-made character and not canon to any game?--Sethacus 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That seems to be the case. I've been playing City of Heroes (the game the character is supposed to be from) since the MMO's launch and there's never been a mention (AFAIK) of anything "Helix" much less an "Agent Helix". Furthermore, the page has a feel of the type of "fanon chara bios" that you'd find here.--IPAddressConflict 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. All the ear-marks of a player-character, and thus totally non-notable. - TexasAndroid 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable player-character, no sources. Realkyhick 18:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsourced, non-notable character. Must have at least one major source.--PrestonH 19:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of notability Corpx 04:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination, lacks notability and multiple non-trivial sources about the subject. Burntsauce 21:57, 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 keep, nominator withdrew and there was no other support for deleting, so closing early. —David Eppstein 07:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decurrent

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

Contested PROD. Dictionary definition already transwikied to Wiktionary. TexasAndroid 16:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw this AFD. Outcome is obviously going to be keep, page has improved quite a bit since I listed it, so there's really no reason to drag this out any longer. - TexasAndroid 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Decurrent? DELETE! (ha, I'm...mildly funny...sometimes) per nom. Obvious dicdef.--Sethacus 16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. Descibes actual phenomenon. Must be moved to decurrence, per wikipedia "no adjectives" style. Mukadderat 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Question Why are you suggesting moving it to a term that is not used in the botanical sciences? The term used is "decurrent," not "decurrence." I have three botany books with morphology glossaries, every one of them has "decurrent" and not a single one has "decurrence." Please explain your proposal for making the term everyone would be looking up, and what the article would be discussing, to naming it for a term not generally found in the literature, and not used. KP Botany 19:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It actually seems to be used, just very rarely. Circeus 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A note regarding this debate has been left to WikiProject Plants. Circeus 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Just because it is mildly Dict-def-ish right now doesn't mean it's not a notableconcept of its own. Circeus 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, it's used extensively in botany. I think it ought to be merged, probably into an overall article on tree habit, except that the term is used so extensively in studies of Angiosperm lateral buds. Also, the noun is not generally used. KP Botany 17:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    It can't be merged into an article about tree habit, because liverworts aren't trees, yet the term is highly relevant for describing their patterns of leaf attachment in certain genera. --EncycloPetey 22:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Yes, that's correct, only the part about tree habit can be merged into that article, and the part about morphology would have to go into a leaf article, but that's not really appropriate for liverworts either, because the leaf anatomy article is biased towards Angiosperms--it doesn't even cover gymnosperms, much less liverworts. KP Botany 04:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see how this isn't good for a Wikipedia article. Seems better than Wiktionary in the first place.Silver seren 17:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and move per Mukadderat. Realkyhick 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly turn into disambiguation page. The term per se is a rather general (although in narrow domain), so accusation in "dicdeficity" are not without merit. Wikipedia does not have articles for adjectives. They are handled in two ways: if it is a "single-meaning" term, it is redirected to the noun, even if the noun is less used: e.g., lipophilic->Lipophilicity. The second way is to disambiguate between notable specific usages, see eg Oblong (a rather poor example, but I have to time to look for better one). Since decurrent leaf, decurrent gill and decurrent crown are rather distant topics, I suggest a disambig page here, with the standard link {{wiktionary}} `'Míkka 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Question Where is this rule about adjectives? What is the point of making an article about a noun, when the noun isn't used? We create usages here just to rigidly adhere to abstract rules? KP Botany 04:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The relevant information (speaking as a botanist) would not be retained on Wiktionary (speaking as an admin for en:wikt). It might be possible to merge this into another article somewhere; but the information should not be deleted. --EncycloPetey 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Skysmith 08:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, but we've got to find a better way to deal with these botanical terms.--Curtis Clark 14:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • fr: has a fr:Glossaire botanique (lit. "botanical glossary") and use that to redirect to more appropriate articles, but I don't know how well that would work. In include material, for example, that we already redirect to other articles (e.g. protandry → dichogamy), or words that we would never use because they are way too jargonic (e.g. "anemogamous", "barochory"). Circeus 17:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Offer to withdraw There is obviously some useful discussion still going on here, so if people would like, we can leave this AFD open to allow the discussion to continue. Or I am at this point willing to conceed and withdraw the AFD. Either way, it's blatantly obvious that the page is going nowhere. :) - TexasAndroid 17:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Withdraw Obviously some discussion about the page needs to take place, but this is not necessarily the most useful place and timing. KP Botany 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep much more than a dictionary definition, provides encyclopedic context. Burntsauce 21:57, 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. Singularity 01:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] StarCraft: Enslavers II

StarCraft: Enslavers II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In-universe plot summary of a PC game. All other articles covering the game's storyline were deleted some time ago, but this one was missed The Clawed One 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete... speedy? Hmm, I wonder if this could be speedily deleted under G6 (Housecleaning), since it's tightly related to an older AfD... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom and WP:PLOT. Otto4711 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons above. -- Sabre 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PLOT. Bart133 (t) (c) 20:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the above. Acalamari 00:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. I don't even think this is from the official campaign. Sdornan 13:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It isn't, though it is an official Blizzard-released map. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:27, 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. I must, however, object to an erroneous argument put forth by Andy: non-English sources are admitted on the English Wikipedia just like English sources, as long as they conform to WP:RS and other policies. It is only that English sources are preferred. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. Kurykh 23:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kumar vishwas

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

Contested prod. No evidence of notability - it's asserted but cannot be verified by any references.

It's claimed that the subject of this article is a major poet, has received a gold medal, has represented India and has written popular books and film scripts. There are no references to prove any of this. There's just a single line in a newspaper report about some kind of award - but what sort of award and why was it given? As far as the reference goes it could be for cookery.

The article originally had references in Hindi. Despite requests the author hasn't replaced them with English references. Right now all that can be confidently stated about Kumar Vishwas is that someone of that name once received an award for something. andy 15:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unless substantial sources can be found. There are a lot of blogs and Youtube-like sites that feature him, but that seems to be the bulk of it at the moment.--Sethacus 16:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per Sethacus. Jakew 20:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The site is in Hindi so it cannot count as an adequate reference for an English-language article. Also, if it's his own site then it's autobiographical and therefore fails the requirement that sources should be independent of the subject. andy 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:BIO. -- Satori Son 15:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above Harlowraman 23:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:TexasAndroid, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 16:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John F. Reed (Journalist, Author, and Disc Jockey)

John F. Reed (Journalist, Author, and Disc Jockey) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pretty blatant conflict of interest here. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:COI blatantly states that it is not a reason for deletion by itself. However, this person is not notable regardless as there are no independant reliable 3rd party sources, and does not pass WP:BIO --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Author has since blanked the page.--Sethacus 15:49, 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 delete a7 nonnotable, g1 nonsense, WP:NFT, you name it. NawlinWiki 17:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Mialdo

Kingdom of Mialdo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Micronation that appears to have been made up in one day. No apparent notability. I was going to speedy it, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Bart133 (t) (c) 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Doesn't even rise to the level of a hoax - it's just some kid's silly blog. andy 15:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Agreed. Tagged.--Sethacus 16:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. Moved to my personal BJAODN too. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy revolution. Down with the pretender, Alexi I. Clarityfiend 17:17, 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Devine

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Sethacus 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 21:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per AVN award nomination in the article Corpx 04:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. One lone nomination for an award should not be sufficient for notability. Tabercil 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Corpx. Tim Q. Wells 23:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tabercil. A nomination is not an award, it's not hard to get nominated, a nomination is no big deal. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Corpx Harlowraman 23:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- RockMFR 22:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carmen Vera

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Most porn stars, notable or not, at least have an IMDB page. This one doesn't.--Sethacus 16:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability in article. Tabercil 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per lack of notability , awards etc Corpx 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not meet guidelines for inclusion. Brusegadi 05:44, 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. Singularity 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity Explored

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

This article asserts no notability for the subject which is essentially the same as its notable "cousin" the Alpha course. Essentially, the article is working as an advertisement for the course. This is the second time this article has been AfDed. What's more, the people and organizations associated with this particular course have been recently deleted for notability reasons:

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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian The Language

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

Unsourced article on supposedly extinct South Asian language. The strange title came about because the author initially made his changes to Indian language [23] until he was challenged for verification from reliable sources. [24] [25] The only "source" that the author(s) have provided is [26], which fails the reliable source guideline completely.

I'm aware that for most unsourced articles we add {{unsourced}} and let them fester wait till someone comes along with the sources. But in this case a claim is being made that an entire language with its own script has existed/is existing - and all the information is unsourced. This is the Porchesia hoax all over again. Thus I urge deletion unless links to detailed write-ups about this "language" from reputable sources are given within five days. (If the outcome of this discussion is "delete", please delete the misleading redirect Ancient Indian language (originally a duplicate of this page), and the accompanying Template:Indianlang infobox too.) Resurgent insurgent 14:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and Rename - it does appear that this is real, the poor sourcing is just poor sourcing. Should be Indian (language). ←BenB4 15:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this Indianádan? ←BenB4 15:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious to know why you think this appears real. --Kuaichik 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This looks to me like this is Malayalam, except it is written with English letters. The sample text is Malayalam, except it is transcribed using English lettering. I've asked some more Kerala editors to chip in on this Corpx 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I agree with the "just needs better sources" argument in principle, in this case the lack of sourcing leaves us guessing as to whether this language ever existed. Cap'n Walker 15:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - We are only promoting such hoaxes with elaborate discussions. I've already asked thrice for a reliable source. There isn't a language called "Indian", nor is transliterated Malayalam called so, as far as I know. This article is a genuine hoax, or complete original research.--thunderboltz(TALK) 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Unsourced nonsense. NawlinWiki 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I know little about languages in India, but even Klingon has its own ISO 639 code. If this were a real language, or even dialect, someone would have very likely created this article long ago. I'm pretty sure this is a hoax. --Targeman 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. dubious,. `'Míkka 19:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete hilarious nonsense Tintin 19:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as utter nonsense. Bigdaddy1981 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Harlowraman 23:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I never heard of this one, and I've heard of a lot. The only "Indian language" that I know is the American place names that are inevitably explained as being "from an Indian word meaning". Part of our heritage of Yankee ingenuity, grouping all American Indians into one group. As for India, it has 15 official languages, none of them referred to as "Indian". Mandsford 23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as hoax and copy-and-paste of the sources that it cites. --Hnsampat 04:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete There is no language called "Indian"; any Malayalee knows that the language predominantly spoken in Kerala is Malayalam. To say there is a language called "Indian" would be very much like saying that there is a language called "European." --Kuaichik 04:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete probably a hoax, zero sources (not counting a personal website), even says "officially not recognised". AFAIK, there is no simple "Indian language". This looks like a lot of WP:OR to me. Melsaran 11:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as fictitious. FWIW, online sources I have consulted in support of this conclusion include Facts about Dravidian languages, Ethnologue Language Family Trees: Dravidian, and Fu Jen Catholic University "Language Familes" website.--orlady 18:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - Hoax. Smokizzy (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Author If this article does not follow Wikipedia's policies, then, I, as Princemathewalleppey and as a member of IIHCR, hereby agree to delete this article from Wikipedia. Princemathewalleppey 13:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - No language known as "Indian". Maybe worthy of WP:BJAODN? :) --vi5in[talk] 19:49, 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. - Bobet 08:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes in English grammar

Disputes in English grammar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a mutual WP:OR essay unsupported by sources, and with a questionable WP:NPOV (for which it has been tagged and detagged several times in its history). I see no place to merge or redirect this, and I question its validity. Delete. Note: There is also a questionable category Category:Disputes in English grammar. SilkTork 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - what, were the sources just added? It's fine, and whatever the POV concern is, I don't see it. ←BenB4 15:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
There are no sources - there are links to articles that may in some way relate to a sentence in the essay, but they are not sources for the concept or topic of "Disputes in English grammar". The topic is original research generated by Wikipedia editors - what I have termed "mutual WP:OR". I would be happy for you to indicate any non-mirror source that deals with the subject of "Disputes in English grammar". SilkTork 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not particularly well-sourced, but it's a notable subject and I don't see the POV issue. Cap'n Walker 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Notability has not been proved. And the POV results from the stance that there is "disagreement about whether given constructions constitute correct English." as that assumes a "prescriptivist" stance rather than a "descriptivist" view. The whole article assumes "prescriptivist". Read English grammar which is a decent article that deals neutrally and properly with any difficulties or differences thrown up by cultural changes in usage of grammar. SilkTork 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — Between 78 and 115 distinct users (depending on how many of the IP addresses actually reflect distinct users) have worked on this article over more than three and a half years; and the topic of this article is well studied and clearly encyclopedic. If you think the article has problems, you can try to help fix them; but it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest it simply be deleted. —RuakhTALK 15:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I do have sympathy for this view. However Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#People_put_a_lot_of_work_into_it gives the response. It appears to me that the article doesn't have problems so much as it shouldn't exist at all. It looks to me as if it breaks all the core principles of WP - it is original research, it is unsourced, it is not notable, it has a specific point of view that it is pushing, and it is not encyclopedic. SilkTork 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is full of OR and weasel words. Of course there are disputes about the correctness of syntax or vocabulary. News flash: this applies to every single language on Earth. This article doesn't provide a single notable example of debatable usage in English. All it says is that "there is often disagreement". Who exactly are the people who disagree? Linguists? They're already covered in Linguistic prescription. Rank-and-file English speakers? What they dispute among themselves is patently not notable. Joe Sixpack may squabble with Mrs Sixpack over whether it's "Ir-AHQ" or "eye-RAQ" but that doesn't deserve an article. Everything here is original research and synthesis. Whatever may be salvageable should be included in Prescriptive linguistics. --Targeman 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. wikipedian's essay, a loose aggregation of topics with the only common denominator that people disagree on something, with no reputable reference that discusses this phenomenon in its entirety. `'Míkka 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep (or merge, if an alternative can be found, since I do not believe there is not a better quality article about this topic). The POV and weasel words can very easily be removed, and the sources can very easily be added, these issues are irrelevant to the deletion process. Admittedly there is original research at the moment, but once this is removed there is still the bare bones, plus great scope, for a good and highly-encyclopaedic article under this title. The topic is notable as well, the only real argument I see for deleting this would be if it turned out that no sources could be found to write proper copy, and I highly doubt that would be the case, if someone put the elbow-grease in. Jdcooper 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A dull article, citing few sources and no examples of that which is supposedly in "dispute". To be mean about it, my dispute is that the article ought to be written in plain English. Mandsford 23:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jdcooper. Mathmo Talk 01:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's an important topic to have. Also, while the article is far from perfect, it has improved over time (I helped it, I can say). The lack of sources can be explained by the fact that The Sun will rise in the morning. But I'll make it my goal to find some, however difficult that might be living in a non-English speaking country. --Otheus 07:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Still needs work to focus on general questions,but well over the bar fro encyclopedic nature. DGG (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep notable and encyclopaedic topic, contains a lot of fine information, has several sources. This just needs a bit of cleanup, that's it. Melsaran 11:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep under the circumstances Aatomic1 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Split infinitive is a former featured article. Hoi polloi is a former featured article candidate. Both articles note that they have been the subjects of controversies over correct usage. In other words they both deal with the subject of "Disputes in English grammar". The statement that "there is disagreement about whether given constructions constitute correct English" is about as neutral a statement as it is possible to make. The positive course of action is to participate in efforts to improve the article. Petecarney 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    The problem is, cases of disagreement can be found for just about every word, phrase, cliché, neologism, etc., etc - in every language, not just in English. In fact, language controversies are such a universal characteristic that writing an article about them is like creating Disputes about George W. Bush's intelligence, Disputes about religion, The briefs vs boxer briefs controversy, The sandals with or without socks dispute, etc. I can't think of a single controversy about grammar that is notable enough to warrant an article. --Targeman 18:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    That's why this isn't an article about a single controversy about grammar; it's an article about such disputes in general, explaining their origins, motivations, and justifications, as well as their interactions with confounding factors (e.g., how some forms of English are considered standard, with their quirks being accepted by most speakers, while other forms are not). And if there's encyclopedic information we can provide about religious disputes in general, then that one definitely warrants an entry. (I'm not sure about the other ones, but a decent article might convince me.) —RuakhTALK 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    If that's how you imagine the scope of this article, than "in English" should definitely be removed from the title given that there are no uniquely English language disputes. I'm a linguist but I highly doubt this article will ever reach a decent standard given its unclear scope. Solid sources are bound to be a problem, too. People disagree about language for the same reason they have different tastes in food, clothing, music, etc - de gustibus non disputandum est. If it's disputes of linguists we're talking about here, Prescriptive linguistics is all there's needed. I appreciate the work of all editors involved in this article, but I'm very skeptical about its future. --Targeman 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    Except that people don't consider their tastes in food, clothing, music, etc. to be definitive; no one would ever say, "It is incorrect to eat broccoli with chocolate syrup", but people do say, "It is incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition" and "It is incorrect to use 'me' as the subject of a sentence." Language disputes form a unique blend of personal preference and logical (or illogical) thinking. Also, you're mistaken to think that disputes in English grammar have only to do with prescriptive linguistics; indeed, the most major clash over English grammar is actually between descriptive and prescriptive approaches. (There are also disagreements among descriptive linguists and among prescriptive linguists, though in the former group the term "non-standard" is typically used instead of the more simplistic "incorrect".) If you relegate discussion of this disagreement to Prescriptive linguistics, you're presenting a very POV-laden view of the topic. —RuakhTALK 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    The difference between descriptive and prescriptive linguistics is a different matter altogether. That should indeed have its own article. If you change the title of this AfD to Descriptive vs prescriptive linguistics and re-write it, I'll accept it immediately. "Disputes in English grammar" is just too vague - an article with such a title will keep attracting disparate data depending on each editor's own idea of what a dispute in English grammar is. --Targeman 13:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    Except that the article's been around for quite a while, with quite a few different contributors, and that hasn't happened. Empirically, your prediction has proven mistaken. —RuakhTALK 15:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary - the fact that after so many contributions this article is still chock-a-block with weasel words, unsourced statements and original research suggests it's unlikely to succeed. I'd gladly help it with some of my own expertise, but not under the current title. Sorry, but from a linguist's point of view, this article is amateurish. --Targeman 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The article as it stands is woolly and un-encyclopedic. I don't feel that the section "Different forms of English" belongs there, as they often cause confusion but rarely dispute. On the other hand the conflict between "Prescription and description" does cause heated disputes, as evidenced by the cited examples. I can't think of anything else which does. Linguistic prescription contains a subsection "Prescription and description in conflict" but, in the interests of balance, should not the same be put into Descriptive linguistics? My preferred solution would be for the existing article to be trimmed down and tightened up to focus solely on "prescription vs description". The existing title might not be entirely accurate but does at least have the virtue of being fairly plain English. I would suggest that the existing title should be kept until after the re-focussing and then there should be a separate debate on change of title.Petecarney 14:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic is fit for encyclopedic coverage, and I fail to see how this meets the definition (our definition) of original research. Yamaguchi先生 04:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh 23:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesley Smith

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

Non-notable presenter. Oli Filth 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per my clean up. Subject satisfies WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete How does this pass WP:BIO ? The first "source" is just an interview with the subject in question -- that is not independant/3rd party. The second "source" is just a link to the website of her employer. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (changing vote to Keep per article cleanup) --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I suggest she falls under Creative Professional - "The person's work either . . . (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." --Evb-wiki 16:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess it's all up to interpretation, but I don't see how a historian for basically what is a museum or whatnot, is a creative professional? Actually, to be more bold, there is no way in hell she is a creative professional. She's just historian. She's not an author, or an artist, or anything of the sort, has no WP:RS, and has done nothing of notable interest --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • According to WP:BIO, creative professionals include "scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals." IMO, Smith's work as curator of Tutbury Castle and the historic research project qualifies her. --Evb-wiki 18:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well as I said, it's up to interpretation, and IMO, her being a historian is not even close to being a "creative professional". --sumnjim talk with me·changes 18:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No independent sources, no notability. Cap'n Walker 16:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless substantial evidence can be obtained to support Evb-wiki. At this point, we have a website to her employer, a link to a story on how she received an honorary degree, a link to a press release by a university where she performed research with students, and an interview with the TV station that carries her show. Not satisfactory at all.--Sethacus 16:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - well-known minor UK television celebrity, and also acclaimed historian and heritage publicist. Could those who voted Delete have another look? I've considerably upgraded the detail and sourcing. Gordonofcartoon 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've changed to keep, though not resounding, yet, and based on my own findings, specifically this article. I couldn't find the articles mentioned in the Lesley Smith article on the websites for the publications listed. Is there any way I could get my hands on those. Say, links?--Sethacus 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The unlinked ones are either too old to be live on their sites, or else unarchived: they come from the NewsBank online UK newspaper archive (for which you need either a subscription or, as in my case, library ticket home access). If you had your e-mail option activated, I could send them. Gordonofcartoon 09:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been a little gunshy about email since my old account was compromised. I've enabled email now, so you should have no problem.--Sethacus 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. Sent. Gordonofcartoon 16:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Change to strong keep upon receiving hard copy of the cited articles, which satisfy notability.--Sethacus 03:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Evb-wiki Mathmo Talk 04:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Week Keep with clean up Harlowraman 23:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Company

Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Advertisement for a nonnotable company. Shalom Hello 13:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. The scope of notability for this business is entirely local and it looks like it is written by somebody with a COI Corpx 15:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7 company with no assertion of notability. ←BenB4 15:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom & Ben Harlowraman 23:44, 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 delete a1, no content, not an article but a help request. NawlinWiki 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bring Back My Summer Love

Bring Back My Summer Love (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This really does not provide any information. No point in keeping an entry like this Joedoedoe 13:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The content is really a question rather than an article. Encourage the original writer to take the question to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment and then delete the article from the mainspace. --Metropolitan90 13:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources can be provided--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable song. I left a link on the creator's page to where I found the lyrics. Clarityfiend 14:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is a Joel Baclayon hymm entitled "Summer Love" (see p. 168 here -- PDF.) It seems pretty non-notable and self-published. ←BenB4 15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I think this was at the Reference Desk at one time. Can't recall if anyone had an answer for it. Non-notable song, anyway.--Sethacus 16:32, 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. No third party sources. Sandstein 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Tourism Queen International 2007

Miss Tourism Queen International 2007 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Weak delete The pageant might be somewhat notable, but I am unconvinced that this particular edition of the pageant is notable on its own. There are a lot of ghits but these seem to be a somewhat ambiguous collection of fansites and mirrors. Searching Google news for Miss Tourism Queen International 2007 comes up with only 4 hits, although the pageant was held recently. I'm not strongly in favour of deletion, but I am unsure whether it meets notability criteria so I thought I'd bring it here. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Extremely worth it The pageant is definitely notable, and specificially this edition, particularly to the pageant world. Other articles don't nearly have as much notability and remain on this site. This edition contained, as noted on the page, the highest number of contestants out of ANY international beauty contest. Simply because the Google world does not have enough information on the pageant provides this page with more reason for being here as it informs people that it exists: Miss Tourism Queen International does not have a huge internet fan base, like Miss Universe or Miss World, but it still is quite noteworthy, and particularly the 2007 edition. One-hundred and eight contestants is quite a large amount of contestants and Miss Tourism Queen International 2007 even features the international beauty contest debut of numerous countries (such as Somalia and Niue) making it more than important. I may be partial to its non-deletion because I created it, but these were the beliefs I held when I created it. Bulldoggie101 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep per above, seems just notable enough.--JForget 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Contestants from 108 nations seems pretty notable to me too. Some people just hate beauty pageants, but they're no less worthy of inclusion than any other large scale event. Mandsford 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm certainly not one of the haters :P My point is simply that there are other non-notable large-scale international pageants around so sheer numbers doesn't, in my opinion, make this a notable event. Considering that there were so many competitors, don't you think there should have been more news coverage? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
And I meant to add one more thing.... Miss America's Outstanding Teen is a notable pageant. However, this year there has been less coverage of the event itself... thus, while I was originally going to write a Miss America's Outstanding Teen 2007 article, I can see that this particular instance is not notable enough to justify inclusion. Same reasoning applies to Tourism Queen Int'l. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete having international participation isn't meaningful for notability unless the pageant gets some international notice, and there seem to be no third party references. This is the sort of event that would accumulate ghits if it were notable. DGG (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Still Look I know you guys are more into this Wiki thing than I am, but you're focusing much more on just one argument. It is a signifigant edition, and my argument is that even if third party sources are scarce -- on the internet -- it doesn't mean people don't know about it. It was a large press event as well as a contest and if necessary I will make that note. Bulldoggie101 05:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. is this article still up for deletion? Because someone - not me - deleted the Afd notice on the page. Bulldoggie101 05:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article on some minor, no-real-world-impact beauty competition is bad enough (though at least arguable), but an obsessively trivial subset on individual years? Not even CLOSE to encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 01:22, 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, more on sourcing concerns than COI. COI is never a sole reason to delete an article. Kurykh 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sustainable Energy Finance Directory

Sustainable Energy Finance Directory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No evidence of notability, 61 unique ghits. Creator / primary editor appears to have a serious conflict of interest with the topic. Deiz talk 10:20, 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. Singularity 01:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Bushby

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

Article about a writer created by an SPA. Read this review of his main book. -- RHaworth 09:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 11:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I actually removed the CSD tag from this and declined to speedy it because I thought it was best for the community to decide its fate and because there seemed to be some assertion of notability. There are over 19,000 ghits but all seem to be either promotional or from quack-like websites. He tries to ride the coattails of Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code but has failed to garner the same kind of notability. JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable conspiracy nut.--Sethacus 16:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, . . . maybe The Bible Fraud is not a best-selling book. Delete. --Evb-wiki 18:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google News Archives comes up with three hits, two of which appear to be letters to the editor of a Sydney suburban newspaper and what appears to be a trivial mention in the Cairns Post. [27] There don't seem to be sources of sufficient strength to establish notaility. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 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. Singularity 01:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U-commerce

U-commerce (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article contains what appears to be OR, as well as lots of vauge claims and future predictions. The article is not referenced nor is the article written in an encyclopaedic tense, reading more like promotional material. I do not believe that this fails the noterity test as there do exist some papers by a particular university group on the subject, but I believe the concept to be equivalent to the comment of "e-commerce" just with embedded computing, and thus not worthy of its own page. Please comment, Thanks User A1 09:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, i think it treads upon wiki is not a dictionary. Forgot that one. User A1 09:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Worse than "not a dictionary". This isn't really even an article about a word that anyone is likely to have heard of, and is some marketing person's Powerpoint slideshow condensed into a wikipedia page.Kww 12:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)--
  • Delete on grounds that U-commerce is expanding the universe of neologisms.--Gavin Collins 13:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible speedy delete as advertising. As neologisms go, this is just clever enough to be annoying. Vacuous patent nonsense about a coming marketing utopia that you too can participate in for a sufficient consultancy fee. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:38, 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 snowball keep. the topic is the official law; well referenced and nontrivial, although indeed sounds like a bad joke. But life is full of such jokes. `'Míkka 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reincarnation Application

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

“Reincarnation Application” is a neologism, not an established, specific technical term. The article is original research about a minor current event, poorly sourced and fails to meet notability criteria. —Babelfisch 08:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete This is clearly neologism in nature. Moreover, a quick google search shows up only a few hits for this term. The lack of any reliable sources for this term is also a major concern here. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Changed to Keep. Clearly, I made an error in judgement here. Based on the overwhelming evidence and further personal research, this article should be kept! --Siva1979Talk to me 13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Clearly the law is sourced and has notability, and it's a law so it's not really a current event. Neologism is debatable, given that the news source refers to it as "reincarnation application" specifically. We could alternatively move it to "Chinese reincarnation registration law" or something of that sort, but that would be kinda silly. I don't get what you people are saying with "original research" "poorly sourced" "lack of any reliable sources" or "impossible to verify", did you not see the reference section? As far as notability goes, see this list:
  • TimesOnline
  • Spero
  • The Telegraph India
  • Reuters Canada
  • Telegraph UK
This is just a *partial* list, it clearly has more than enough notability and verifiability, the only real debate here is the name --Lucid 09:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and a comment; neologisms are about WORDS that are recently coined. Not new things in general, and not names of things that are clearly understood --Lucid 09:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, not a neologism, but a term for a new legal document created by China. Futhermore, there are plenty of reliable sources. This also appears to be a significant event in China's policy toward Buddhism and specifically toward the Dalai Lama. IPSOS (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the article contains a bit of OR when explaining the term, but that doesn't make the event or term unnotable. References seem to back the article. Kww 12:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The term seems to be clearly notable and the article explains it well enough. --Klimov 12:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep,clearly a notable term, used in many reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 12:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --RucasHost 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Status of religious freedom in People's Republic of China. --Metropolitan90 13:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, if for nothing else per WP:SNOW. This has to be the most bizarre piece of legislation I have yet heard of. As such it is interesting, and being interesting is a perfectly good argument for keeping something. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Tiger Kenpo

White Tiger Kenpo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As far as I can tell this is taught at a couple of locations only. I call WP:NN advertisement. I PRODed the article several months back but the person who removed it did not address the issues.Peter Rehse 08:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 08:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable sources for this subject. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article from reliable sources that are independent of this subject. The lack of any secondary sources is also a major concern here as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Week delete-if the school was heavily involved in training an early UFC fighter might be notable, but would need sourcing that it was his primary style. Other wise its just using it as advert material. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn `'Míkka 20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing core policies of WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. VanTucky (talk) 20:04, 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 redirect to Duff Beer (The Simpsons). It may not be part of the movie promotion but still doesn't warrant an article of its own. — Malcolm (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duff Energy Drink

Duff Energy Drink (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Flaming Moe Energy Drink (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I suspect a hoax, but even beyond that we have no references of any kind (WP:V), and no explaination of why the subject is important (WP:N). Google search not promising: [28] Marasmusine 08:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Redirect to Duff Beer (The Simpsons) for Duff Energy Drink and Delete Flaming Moe Energy Drink. --Lenticel (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • These are not a hoax, they are products from the 7-Eleven Kwik-E-Mart promotion to advertise The Simpsons Movie. Still they don't deserve there own page. So Redirect "Duff Energy Drink" to Duff Beer (The Simpsons) and Redirect "Flaming Moe Energy Drink" to List of products in The Simpsons. Gran2 11:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Duffman says "Redirect per Gran2. Oh, yeah!" Promotional products don't merit articles of their own. Clarityfiend 13:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to whatever page is covering the Simpson's movie promotions, which themselves merit coverage as a collective. FrozenPurpleCube 17:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going with a merge to The_Simpsons_Movie#Marketing or Kwik-E-Mart#7-Eleven_promotion. (rationale for change below) Info is rather interesting but doesn't deserve their own articles and should be placed in the articles where they actually have context, as promotional items for the movie. Shrumster 17:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote up there to Merge and redirect to Duff Beer (The Simpsons). Apparently, it already *is* on the Duff Beer article, albeit just a stub sentence and an external link (which should satisfy verifiability). Merge just the relevant, encyclopedic info, no need for the nutritional facts and composition. Shrumster 08:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with you guys? THIS IS NOT PART OF THE 7-11 PROMOTION! I added these pages for that reason. They are sold only at Spencer's and Hot Topic's. They have nothing to do with The Simpsons Movie promotion. I would also be super disappointed if these pages got deleted because they took me awhile to make. They were my first pages. They don't look too bad, they are semi-informative, and there is no category they belong in. They deserve their own pages... or maybe one merged together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ordealbyfire (talk • contribs)
Ok, I'm going to deal with your comments one by one. First, the objection that these are not part of the 7-11 KeM promotion, or even the movie promotion is a valid one. It would help if you would provide sources to indicate that though. Your second statement about disappointment because of the effort you put into it is something that reflects I think an attitude of possessiveness and ownership of the articles. Sorry, but while being polite and considerate to you is important, there isn't any value given to anybody's amount of edits. I also think you misunderstand the concept of category. All articles should belong to some category, that's organizational. What you're talking about is a singular relationship between the products. And I think you're missing the obvious one. The producer of the products. There might be other places, but that seems the obvious one. FrozenPurpleCube 19:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Glad to know it's not a hoax. this is the relevant notability guide. Not convinced the products meet the criteria for inclusion. Marasmusine 19:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I still don't understand what's so entirely wrong with me making that page. It is completely legit. Wiki is AWFULLY strict about pictures then. It's just a picture of the drink, and I took it with my Web Cam... I included information... it's not like it's a garbage page or anything.--Ordealbyfire 20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry, but the product, just by being a Simpsons spinoff product, is not inherently notable. The fact that you took the picture yourself is admirable, but the question before the jury is just how encyclopedic is the article. We don't have articles on the Simpsons dice game or the Simpsons magic 8 ball or the Simpsons chess set. Because they are not notible just for having been a Simpsons-branded product. That's whay I say Smithers, release the hounds and Redirect. Pat Payne 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Ahem, this is an inexperienced user, who might take comments like that last one a bit off. I suggest trying to be more gentle and avoiding the funny remarks (and yes, I did laugh, but I can see in this case there might be a problem). Anyway, to Ordealbyfire there is nothing wrong with the picture, I'm guessing you didn't know you needed to put copyright information in a form that the bot could read. I don't blame you for this, I think these bots are annoying myself, but I'll set up the template on the image for you. As for this article (which is different from the image), the problem is a lack of sources. Everything on the page is just your opinion, without saying where it comes from. This is a problem on Wikipedia, which needs sources in many cases. At the least, linking to the manufacturer of the product's page would show folks that it did exist. Note, BTW, nobody is saying you did anything wrong, in the sense that you ought to be punished or chided, but perhaps you are inexperienced with how an article is written on Wikipedia. That's understandable, a lot of folks don't know it either. And even some of those who do have disagreements. FrozenPurpleCube 21:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep In that it's not a hoax, and it is a legitimate product on the market. Soon, I predict it will go the way of Mr. T cereal and Billy beer and when it does, it can be merged back into one of the many Simpsons articles. Mandsford 00:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually there is an article on Billy Beer. FrozenPurpleCube 00:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep , maybe later merge/redirect per mandsford. Mathmo Talk 01:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect Per the above. Artw 04:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 04:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Duff Beer (The Simpsons). It's no hoax; I think I did see it at Spencer's. And it's not part of the Simpsons promotion since I saw the product long before the film was approaching. But there's no evidence that it has significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. 17Drew 07:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Duff Beer (The Simpsons) per PatPayne and 17Drew.--JayJasper 13:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per above. Harlowraman 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FuBar

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

I actually make use of this World of Warcraft user interface plugin (it's great!), but I see no evidence that it meets any relevant notability criterion. JavaTenor 07:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - nonnotable software. Shalom Hello 13:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 14:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above, and the article doesn't explain what it does. ←BenB4 15:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to FUBAR. NawlinWiki 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No, that'd be confusing. Melsaran 19:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for obvious reasons. spazure (contribs) 09:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete individual World of Warcraft addons aren't notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. (by the way, TitanBar is waaay better ;)) Melsaran 19:13, 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 No Consensus.. CitiCat ♫ 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World War III in popular culture

World War III in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Yet another pop culture trivia collection that doesn't serve much purpose besides being a massive list of cluttered trivia. RobJ1981 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - a mere list of trivias. --Hirohisat Talk 07:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keepKeep. The article was spun off from World War III a year ago[29] but has kept growing. While I oppose the creation of new popular culture listcruft, there has to be some accommodation for legacy articles spun off from a parent article in good faith. The topic has been the subject of at least one scholarly work which has numerous citations in Google Scholar.[30] Dbromage [Talk] 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If this source about the use of the concept of an apopalyptic future war in popular culture could be located and used as the core of an article about the concept, I would be inclined to keep. In its current form, the 'article' is a laundry list of times WWIII is mentioned, attributed, referred to, or implied, and as such should be deleted -- saberwyn 21:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC) This has been addressed
      • Deletion is not the way to fix problems. Just like suicide is not the way to fix problems either! Mathmo Talk 01:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - directory of loosely associated topics, seeking to capture any piece of fiction that involves a large military conflict taking place after 1945 whether it's referred to within the fiction as "World War III" or not. Otto4711 13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are no problems here that cannot be solved with editing, or that require the removal of this page and its history from the encyclopedia name space. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Classifying any conflict that happens in the future in movies as World War III is WP:OR to me. This is basically a list of all the wars fought in the future in fiction. Corpx 14:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful, and a notable subject in pop culture. If people are so against "...in popular culture" articles, I suggest they lobby for the official creation of a policy banning such subject matter. 23skidoo 15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The existing policy, WP:NOT#DIR, is in the main sufficient to deal with most of these trivia traps. WP:USEFUL is not a persuasive argument for keeping. As has been noted above, if there are ources that discuss WW3 in pop culture as a concept, then an article on the concept would undoubtedly be quite welcome. Whereas a listing of every future war from every piece of fiction is not. Otto4711 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - at best it is trivia; get some sources and then let's talk. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there is an encyclopedic coverage of this topic, it may be evolved in the main article, with possible spin-off. Right now it is just a laundry list wit some unreferenced trivial general remarks. `'Míkka 20:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Most Wikipedians are too young to remember when we really worried about "World War III", but I agree that this should and could easily be sourced. A mere 25 years ago, before we worried about environmental catastrophes, we worried about being nuked. The years between 1950 and 1990 saw a lot of speculation about wars in which we would either be annihilated or occupied. Given that this was a legitimate topic for countless books (another thing Wikipedians tend not to be interested in) and movies (some interest), this has the makings of a great article. Mandsford 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per mandsford. Mathmo Talk 01:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep In the past, these articles have been challenged for lack of ref.s to prove notability of the general subject. Here one is provided, though some of the above comments ignore that. All further questions are a matter of editing. WP:NOT#DIR, is not a policy against these article, as they are not collections of miscellaneous unrelated information, but collections of information about related information of topics with a common theme. The people opposed to these articles are currently trying to change WP:NOT so it will read the way they want it to, but at the moment there is no rule that can be cited against articles such as this. DGG (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I will struggle to assume good faith here and believe that you aren't delibrately trying to mislead people by saying that NOT#DIR doesn't apply to these articles, when it's clear through the deletion of close to if not more than 100 of these pop culture articles as directories of loosely associated topics that NOT#DIR applies. No one appears to be saying that a sourced article on the concept of WW3 in pop culture would be unacceptable, but, again, this is not an article about the concept. It is a list of fictional military conflicts that take place after 1945, many of which are not even called "World War III" within the fiction from which they're drawn. Otto4711 21:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but seriously trim. Also consider renaming to "...in fiction" rather than "...in popular culture" and removing any references that aren't related to fiction. User:Corpx's concerns of OR are real, and much of the content is OR. Something is only verifiably a cultural depiction of World War III if it is either (1) explicitly called this in the depiction or (2) referred to as such by a reliable secondary source. Many of the entries on this list don't appear to satisfy either of these two conditions. On the other hand, the question of how the prospect of such a war is portrayed in fiction is clearly a notable one that should be explored. JulesH 11:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think JulesH's principle for sorting out the right ones is a good idea. In this particular article, many of the items really belong in another place, such as nuclear war in ... or future war in ... DGG (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The songs are more popular culture than fiction (movies, books, etc). Dbromage [Talk] 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although cleaning up such articles is noble the appearance of WW3 in fiction is so massive that it is worth to have leaf article just for sanity of editors of the main text. Pavel Vozenilek 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as usual. Bad trivia. Bulldog123 10:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 07:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I've given the article a quick rewrite. Could the "delete"s please take a look at it? The topic is clearly notable, as stated above a quick search on Google Scholar or Books will show sources that discuss WWIII in pop culture as a concept. The concern with it being a list of trivia can be dealt with through editing using those sources, and is not a reason for deletion. I thought that improving earlier versions of an article was the way the wiki worked. --Bláthnaid 20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Looks much better and I've removed the "weak" from my vote. I now vote Keep. Dbromage [Talk] 00:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Excellent work. That's what a pop culture article should look like. :) JulesH 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So the bullet points have been turned into complete sentences. That doesn't make the actual topics of the sentences any more closely associated. Otto4711 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Otto4711, the entire article was rewritten. The very first paragraph establishes the topics' association: World War III is a common theme in popular culture. Since the 1940s, countless books, films, and television programmes have used the theme of nuclear weapons and a third global war.[1] The presence of the Soviet Union as an international rival armed with nuclear weapons created a persistent fear in the United States. There was a pervasive dread of a nuclear World War III, and popular culture reveals the fears of the public at the time.[2] This theme in the arts was also a way of exploring a range of issues far beyond nuclear war.[3] The historian Spencer R. Weart called nuclear weapons a "symbol for the worst of modernity."[1]. There are a few sentences establishing context at the start of each sub-section, before relevant examples are given. Could you point me towards an "X in popular culture" article that you think is suitable for Wikipedia? --Bláthnaid 17:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You cant label these fictional conflicts as "World War III". They're fictional conflicts that are set in the future, but they're not WW3 Corpx 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Exactly. As has been pointed out from the jump, every fictional war that takes place after 1945 is not by definition "World War III." "Fear of nuclear weapons" doesn't automatically translate into "fear of World War III." A nuclear war is not automatically World War III; indeed, the only nuclear war we've had was not World War III. Otto4711 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I see where you are coming from now. I still disagree, though :p. For example at the start of the 1980s section it says ...In the early 1980s there was a feeling of alarm in Europe and North America that a nuclear World War III was imminent.[8]...This worry manifested itself in the popular culture of the time, with images of nuclear war in books, film, music, and television.[6] That point alone is enough for the article to be kept and built on. How about the 1950s section? The book The Horror Film: An Introduction makes the connection between WWIII fears and the popularity of science-fiction films, I didn't. In the 1960s section, the quote about fears of a nuclear attack kicking off WWIII being expressed in film is attributed to Susan Sontag. The fear was mostly of a nuclear World War III, but there were other interpretations e.g. Tom Clancy. There are enough reliable sources for the article to be kept. Of course, the article still needs a lot of work, and I appreciate your advice. --Bláthnaid 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you cite every item on that list as being referred to as WW3 by a reliable source? Otherwise they should be removed and it would leave the article quite empty Corpx 00:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is clearly much improved, the remaining concerns can be dealt with editorially, and I urge those who have been impressed by the initial pile-on delete !votes to take another look now. DGG (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't care if it's in paragraph form, just a messy page. A nn subject, just about times a fictional war has (or may have been) mentioned in a tv show or such. Clearly not needed here, like the other trivia forks. Biggspowd 05:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. On what basis do you say it is nn? Per WP:JNN, "simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable". The references include scholarly works on the subject. Dbromage [Talk]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OpenDevelop GNU/Linux

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

I've nominated this in July and the AfD was closed due to lack of consensus. Actually there was [little] consensus, but Sandstein's real concern seems to have been that the claim that the topic was not notable was not backed. Sorry, I thought this would be obvious. So: No reliable sources found to establish notability. More convincingly, a "notable" Linux distribution should get at least 50 thousand preliminary hits on Google. "OpenDevelop GNU/Linux" gets only 163. To be fair, since this name is long, I checked OpenDevelop Linux -wikipedia , which only gets 246 preliminary hits. Chealer 05:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - Some notability, but not quite as nom mentioned. --Hirohisat Talk 06:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure if not being on distrowatch.com warrants deletion, but I can't find this disto there either. FrozenPurpleCube 06:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Being on it won't make it notable, but not being on something like that probably doesn't help its claim to notability. KTC 09:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, with no reliable secondary sources. KTC 09:12, 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 delete under WP:CSD#G11.-Wafulz 13:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MySafe-PC

MySafe-PC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. Article title gets four google hits. Weregerbil 05:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - It is in a very promotional tone, and totally lacks notability. --Hirohisat Talk 06:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under G11 - blatant advertising. Marasmusine 08:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G11. KTC 09:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G11. Why did this thing even make it this far?Kww 12:42, 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 deleted per CSD A7 (web content). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perry The Perv

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

Non-notable online game which fails WP:WEB. fuzzy510 04:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom Harlowraman 05:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 05:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Hirohisat Talk 06:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. Caknuck 06:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB and has no references or proof of notability. Seraphim Whipp 10:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable flash games dont merit their own articles. Especially ones that don't even try to verify notability. James Luftan contribs 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB, article doesn't even try to assert notability, making this a borderline speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:17, 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 everything per WP:V, WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL. Sandstein 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shattered Heroes

Primary article: Shattered Heroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film. The author of this article has uploaded and added everything else related to this film.

Here are all the articles and images related to this film:

  • Shattered Heroes
    • Image:Shattered Heroes Poster.JPG
  • John Ceallach
    • Image:John Ceallach.JPG
    • Image:Captain James Russell.JPG
  • James Hall (actor)
    • Image:James Hall.JPG
    • Image:James Hall Himself.JPG
    • Image:Officer James Hall.JPG
    • Image:James Hall Rancher.JPG
  • Robert Gordon Spencer
  • David McDivitt
  • Shattered Heroes character biographies
  • Jesse Johnson (director) (added by closing admin)

Phew. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom Harlowraman 04:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Hirohisat Talk 07:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All The Author did not make any of these, I did, do not delete them, it took me too much time and it will not be wasted. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 10:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You are the author I mentioned; the author of the article, not the author of the film. Sorry I wasn't clearer on that; I've rephrased the initial wording to be a bit clearer. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. No reliable sources in sight, and the whole construct is built on a shaky foundation of WP:CRYSTAL. Deor 11:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It appears that the film is in production and currently being filmed. WP:CRYSTAL can't apply if the film is confirmed, which it is. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A petition will be started to keep this article after reviewing the dialog and discussion here in, it would appear that the discussion is bias and not being reviewed fairly or objectively by the supporting evidence. talk 9:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
    • Source? Just because it has something on IMDB doesn't mean that it is notable enough for an article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The articles for the people are basing the guys' notability on their involvement with the movie, which does not exist. And even if this small-time production should be completed, there's no assurance that it will get widespread distribution or otherwise prove to be notable. That constitutes crystalballery enough for me. Deor 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. IMDb.com shows through the Pro Access this film is in Production with verified, secured, escrow funds in the amount of $10,000,000.00. Small - time Production? That statement in itself is crystal ball. Speculative and not fact! A noted media source like IMDb.com viewed by millions is hardly considered not reliable! IMDb.com also shows that the production has a distribution company attached. This can only be achieved through IMDb.com when a letter of intent in writing is provided to IMDb.com showing pre-distribution foundation through theatrical and or DVD release. In addition there are several SAG Union actor's attached to the production that can only be secured through contractual agreements with the Actor's Talent Agents and or Talent Managers. For SAG Actor's to be attached to a film production means that the Production has supplied SAG with documentation, permits secured from State and Local agencies for filming as well as provided documentation of safety guidelines, permits again from state and local agencies providing proof that the Production of the film meets all safety guidelines, has secured EMT/Firefighter resources as well as Law Enforcement presence on-set and during filming. That is how IMDb.com establishes weather or not an upcoming film production is to be listed. It is the difference between rumored / Crystal Ball info and information brought to light through well established guidelines and channels that historically have an extremely long paper trail. (Analogy) You take your car to a mechanic and he tells you that your starter is bad. Do you believe him? You take your car to an accredited Automotive Shop and they bring you the starter from your car with test results from a certified and recognized industry standard test machine and show you the results. The high end and low end voltage not meeting normal operating capacity and advise that the unit needs to be replaced. talk 9:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. The Film is confirmed, and is in fact, Re-Shooting, which on IMDb the Director states. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • IMDB is not a reliable source. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Evula is More of a reliable source? Again you are basing this off your own opinion and not the opinion of millions of view IMDb.com daily and believe it to be a reliable source. This is bias! So because you are an Editor here, your opinion matters more? These discussions are to be accounted by the rules, guidelines, policies and practices set fourth by Wikipedia. This has been established in an attempt to keep personal judgment out of the equation so that subject matter can be reviewed fairly and objectively. I do not see this happening here! Again such infractions could be a smoking gun and damaging to Wikipedia in a whole. Re-asses and re-evaluate according to proper guidlines! According to the reliable source IMDb.com would be a reliable source. Further more, the media source "Estrada Media" is also a reliable source. IMDb.com uses the same methodology as Wikipedia for making such decisions. So how can they be any less reliable than Wikipedia itself? talk 10:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Also from that same guidline; # MySpace: MySpace is generally not acceptable even as a self-published source, because most of it is anonymous or pseudonymous. If the identity of the author can be confirmed in a reliable, published source, then it can be used with the caution appropriate to a self-published source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Are_wikis_reliable_sources.3F Note this as the myspace supporting links on these articles are listed in IMDb.com as being verified official web presences for the Actor's in question. The myspace.com web presence for Actor James Hall is also listed in the Estrada Media Publication in print given by the Actor himself during the interview as being his official myspace presence. Also I have found archive audio from "Inside Entertainment" conducting live radio show interviews with each of these Actor's in question as well as the director. Each gave their official myspace page url during the interview as well as the myspace url for the Shattered Heroes official myspace presence as well as the imdb.com url for the Movie. The more I research this the more I find these guys in the public eye! I just questioned the Chief Editor of "movievine.com" if they have heard anything relative to these actor's or the film, "Shattered Heroes". The Chief Editor said, "Yes, we are currently writing an article about these upcoming professionals which will be featured soon in our New Film's section as well as Entertainment News.talk 11:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Well how about this, I asked the Director myself and he said it is. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 05:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment . . . and that director (Jesse Johnson (director) is "most notable for his role of writing, acting in, and directing Shattered Heroes". That article should be included in this group deletion --KenWalker | Talk 18:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. I proposed the James Hall article for deletion earlier and suggested it ought not to be written by the subject. There was a considerable effort to improve the layout of the article and to cite sources. At that point Obi-Wan took over. A rewrite followed when another editor deleted much of the article as a copyvio. It still comes down to a group of articles that lack notability. That might change someday, but in the meantime, these articles don't belong here. --KenWalker | Talk 07:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete even the film as the main article is not notable, but if a more modest approach had been tried, a single article might perhaps have not been noticed. Another example of how COI can mess things up. DGG (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Most notable" for his role in a film that hasn't yet been released. Says it all really! A non-notable possibly upcoming film "starring" a group of people nobody's ever heard of. Doesn't deserve an article unless it becomes successful and neither does anyone associated with it. At the moment these are no more than poorly-written puff pieces. "Sgt. Rick Maddison is true grit Top Sergeant that worked up through the ranks from the Calvary with Colonel Iverson. A career military man who is known for getting the job done!" Give me a break! -- Necrothesp 01:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A group of people nobody has ever heard of? Again, IMDb.com is viewed by millions of people. The Pro Access and discussion boards show "Star Meters" for every entry in IMDb.com. These statistics are based off media releases, interviews, publications, user votes, etc. The star meters of all the involved talent with the production are very respectable. In addition the article shows verification of a print publication by Estrada Media in FL. I called this entity through the address information listed for the company and verified that the article and interview of Actor James Hall, did in fact take place. This also is not Crystal Ball. It was a real interview, with a real recognized Media Publication entity. So, it would appear that the event did in fact take place and was factually printed by the Media Resource based of the actual events and accounts of the interview during the interview process. This also shows public interest. Why would a media resource do an interview on someone they have not heard of or does not believe is of public interest? That does not sell magazines! Puff Piece? You are commenting on a dialog from a script in reference of the character bio. Hardly appropriate! Please show some dignity and common respect to others. This is not a slander session but a discussion on an article. When you make it personal that shows your judgment is clouded and based of personal views rather than the information at hand and in itself is against wiki rule, policies and guidelines for making these decisions. Further more through researching the actual article from Estrada Media, "On The Outside Magazine" I found this magazine is a professional distribution to film industry professionals and that during the interview it was discussed and validated that the Productions "Movie Poster" is displayed at the National WWII Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana. Also that Clint Eastwood while attending a tour of the museum after premiering "Flag Of Our Fathers" saw the poster and contacted the Production company with interest and visited a set in Alabama where the Production Company was filming. This was covered by a local TV News Station and I was able to watch archived News footage covering the event. Further research revealed that the National VFW is supporting the film Nationwide as they are in support of the film as it touches on the subject matter of PTSD (Post traumatic Stress Disorder). During that research I was advised by VFW personal that the film was also being recognized by France as they want to have the film inducted into their Historical Society as the film also contains a Pro-French account of the French's involvement in WWII. France has already played the Film Teaser at Cannes and is in negotiation of having the film's Theatrical Debut at Cannes. It would appear that the following of this film is wide spread and of not only public interest but also of interest to National Organizations. I think that the deletion of this article may bring some bad Public Media to wikipedia. Has anyone though about this or explored this side of the situation? Further more with the dialog being used by some of the Editors here like, "Puff Piece" etc. can be viewed by the public. Anyone wishing to read this discussion as I have. And even post without using a user name. The dialog here shows bias and is clearly not being viewed by proper guidelines. The dialog here and the decision process is not being executed fairly or by supporting evidence provided. Weather or not your view is that IMDb.com is accurate enough in your opinion, is just that. Your opinion. The fact is that millions of people who view IMDb.com daily rely on the information and follow their interests about and surrounding the film industry at that media resource. Do to that fact! IMDb.com makes every effort to ensure that their content material is accurate, founded and supported. Not much different than that of Wikipedia. They to have discussion boards and Editors who review and research the material in a professional objective and un-bias manner to establish and decide weather or not the content material stays. And the "Fact" that the material on the Actor's in question, as well as the film material are listed proves to be interesting as a body of researches have explored this same subject matter here and decided that the material would be listed on IMDb.com. talk 11:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
  • IMDB is still not a reliable source, which is required to verify notability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • IMDB Is Regarded as a trustworthy as well as recognized as an authority on the TV/Fiilm industry. How it operates and conductions business as well as how "Movie Productions" are structured, validated and executed. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. "From" reliable source Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. However, the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Your opinion on weather IMDb.com is reliable or not is without merit! Publicly IMDb.com is regarded as trustworthy and is regarded as an authority on the content they publish. There for by wikipedia guidlines is regarded as a reliable source! Again the purpose of this policy is so that articles are not tainted or improperly deleted. Bottom line is, your opinion to weather or not IMDb.com is a reliable source is unfounded and invalid. And it still does not address the other supporting publications listed. When there are several different media publications on the same subject matter. That is a validation in itself that the subject matter is valid. That is the whole purpose of multiple supporting resources be listed on an article. talk 10:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Please Follow Link http://www.kauz.com/news/local/4512136.html Here is news footage as well as an article called "A Taste Of Hollywood" from News Channel 6 KAUZ in Wichita Falls and Lawton discussing Director Jesse Johnson and "Shattered Heroes". I will continue researching this. Is this more reliable for everyone? A TV News Station? How much more research would you like done? Would you like these notable resources to be listed on the page? I am finding more and more and more as I continue to research this. Although I get the feeling still that no matter how much reliable sources I gather that for some reason no one will listen or take them into account. Next I am sure someone will say that a TV News Station reporting news is not a reliable resource either. The unfortunate thing is that others here could be researching this also. I guess it is easier to just delete an article? One might ask why I am doing this? Well, like Obi, I am a fan of these guys. I simply was sold on the film when I saw the "Shattered Heroes" myspace page with the teaser trailer. Being a military man who has suffered from PTSD I really was very impressed with the message and how they are bringing this subject to life. They actually care! And it seems that so many do not. Also it was very easy to see that this film is well organized, factually accurate with equipment and props through the teaser. The tanks are correct period and design as well as the weapons used right down to the uniforms. They have the support of the WWII Historical Society Re-enactment Team and I found out they are using the WWII HSRET as consultants as well as using a WWII Airborne Demonstration Team from the Fredrick Airbase in Fredrick's Oklahoma run by Top Sgt. Richard Wolf. http://www.wwiiadt.org/index.html In short, is anyone of the Editors here willing to help with this and give some direction as to what and were this content needs to be placed to keep this article alive? I will devote the time to continue my research as the more I find I am actually getting motivated and excited for these guys. The info is out there, it is just taking some time and research to find the data. Would anyone disagree that the Channel 6 News that I referenced and provided a link to is a reliable resource? The only infraction I can really see here is that maybe the initial research was not complete and maybe the right reference material was not used. But clearly this film is in production and being recognized. OK, understood that by consensus here, IMDb.com is not reliable, but there are other reference sources listed on the page and again I am looking for more. I would just like a little guidance and direction as to what everyone is looking for? And again I would like to express some concern as some of the comments by editors almost seem to be attacking these guys directly and they are not even involved with this or the discussion. Obi is a fan and I am. I am a disabled Vet and have lots of time to devote to this. I heard of this film through my local VFW and some of my mates here are willing to research as well. This group has traveled to many VFW across the country already presenting this project and showing support to vets. They are even scheduled to visit our VFW in coming months. I assure you that all of us here and at other VFW posts are supporting this project "Nationally" and aim to continue. Here is another link I found with the Movie Teaser on Internet TV http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,2247767677.aspx here is the link I found with the archive audio from Inside Entertainment http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?host_id=2129 in addition to the DJ's myspace page here http://www.myspace.com/ctactor and was recognized as "WINNER- OUTSTANDING NEW TV PROGRAM IN THE CT AREA 2007! SKYE AWARDS. IM AN ACTOR/TV & WEB RADIO HOST!" http://a546.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/77/l_ad5990ba5c59ef172aad8a8bd5ab60e9.jpg So I believe him to be a reliable resource as well. In addition I found at wga.com that the script is properly registered as I saw that in the reliable sources section that the WGA is considered a reliable source. The WGAw registration number for "Shattered Heroes" is 1188086. This film is also registered with the Library Of Congress. The Production Company and the Film are also registered with SAGIndie which can be validated at this url http://www.sagindie.org/directory/national-101-producer.html They are listed on the front page. I am in the process of obtaining this information form the Production Company Skyline Pictures who is being very helpful on providing any information needed. It may take some time if some patience is extended by everyone here while I continue with the research. So will some patience be extended while I continue research? talk 19:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete the lot as lacking in notability and reliable sources. If the film is released and those involved go on to make their names, the required articles can be created then. Nuttah68 14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The extensive debate about what is or isn't a reliable source ignores the fact that a group of aspiring actors with a film in the works does not demonstrate notability for either even if the sources are reliable. --KenWalker | Talk 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Notability" ((more than trivial but less than exclusive)) Understood. But what about the films these gentleman have already been in? The fact that their name is in the credits of films already is notability correct? Just trying to follow along here. I was researching Mr. David McDivitt on IMDb.com. He has film credits longer than my arm. In films like "Final Approach" with Anthony Michael Hall. "Oceans 13" with Clooney, Pitt and other's. ETC. Not all Actor's are household names but still have a very large fan base and followers of their work. Take Paul Giamotti for example. Or Thomas Hayden Church. Notability is notability right? Or is that measured here some how and have to meet a certain statistical number? As I reviewed the Notability guide lines it appears that notability heavily relies on the verifiable objective evidence. Which is already listed here. So I am even more confused why the resistance now? In short this is what is sated on the Notability page, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." So each supplied resource is independent and and several sources makes it significant coverage. Please explain because each reference I am given appears to not be being followed in this debate. So again I feel it to be bias. It also states "Significant coverage" which means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is ((more than trivial but less than exclusive))." It also references "Secondary Sources" which I see on Mr. Hall's page. Secondary recourses like "On The Outside" magazine by Estrada Media that Interviewed Mr. Hall on his current and past film works. This was published and is in distribution. I also see as a secondary resource "Who Is Who In America" which is also published and in distribution. So does that not qualify to this standard? Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merger with another article. talk 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Also from the notability page. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right. The table to the right lists, film, people, etc. Notability is not reflective of "Fame", "Importance", or "Popularity". It states that a subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guidelines. General Notability guidelines is that the subject is being covered by independent outside resources. Hummmmm And this is being covered by independent outside resources. So not only does it meet the notability guideline but also the verifiable resources and secondary resources guidelines. Now do you see why it appears to be bias? The references made by the editors here listed are in direct conflict with the guideline criteria. References are being made by editors about fame and popularity and when these guys make a name for themselves yet the guidelines state that notability has nothing to do with fame, or popularity. Just that the subject material has more than trivial independent coverage and less than exclusive independent coverage. I believe the references listed by the editors are out of context of the guidelines. Would you not agree? I may be a disabled vet, but I am an educated one. talk 18:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Appeal I would like to know if this can be reviewed by other editors from this medium? Other than those currently in the discussion? To be re-reviewed. No offense to anyone here, but but my previous comment reflects why this request is being made. talk 18:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment These articles share some content however are separate articles. Why are these articles being merged together for deletion review? Can articles be blanketed together for Deletion Review? talk 21:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
    • They're being run at the same time because they're all related. If you wanted to send them to deletion review, I suppose you could submit them all at the same time as well (though you'd only reference this one AfD). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • They have some related content but appear to be different articles. The Shattered Heroes article is about a film. The Articles James Hall, Robert Spencer, David McDivitt, John Ceallach appear to be biography articles. They are related by link references as it would appear some of these individuals who are working on this film also have biography articles. This appears to be common on all articles on wikipedia. Especially where films are concerned. For example George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg both have Bio articles on wiki yet the film "Three Kings" they both worked on. So the two would be linked to the movie page for "Three Kings". Hence related. So if there were a problem with the movie page would it be customary to just delete their Bio Articles? Blanketing them all together for a deletion review? This is very confusing. If these articles have issues and they are separate issues it might be less confusing to have them listed separately for Deletion Reviews so no accidental infractions are made when under discussion. It would appear to me that if all are blanketed yet have different issues that mistakes will be made in judgment and would not be a neutral point of view consensus. It also make interpretation very difficult.

talk 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Why is this article being reviewed for deletion? Non-notable film? This article is listed as schedule or expected films A film scheduled or expected has not been released or been under movie review for notability. There for the notability would not apply. The article should show supporting individual resources as well as secondary resources validating that the film has been planned to be filmed/released. This article has provided the necessary resource links to establish it has been planned to be filmed/released. Note that Crystal Ball would not apply here either. The article author has not referenced in any way what type of movie reviews the film will have or how much money it might make. The author is just simply listing the film as a scheduled or expected film There for the article is satisfactory listed for the article category. If the article stated for example, "This film will be a blockbuster.", that would be constituted as Crystal Ball. talk 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
    • A movie being under development does not make it notable. None of the sources you've provided have, in my opinion, established notability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is listed under Scheduled or expected films. None of the films listed under this section are notable. Or being requested to establish notability. It is a category for expected films. Films that have not yet been released. How can something have notability prior to being released and seen? If it is a requirement that scheduled or expected films be notable then the whole category Scheduled or expected films should be deleted. Please explain how notability applies to an article listed in this section? The Category guidelines does not mention notability guidelines as an article requirement for articles in this category. 'confused' talk 21:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
    • The Bourne Ultimatum was notable well before it was released, because it was (a) based on a notable book, (b) featured notable actors, (c) directed by a notable director, and (d) produced and distributed by notable companies. This film fits none of those criteria. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think I understand your point of view on the notability, however I disagree with it for a couple of reasons. One, Notability Guidelines state the interpretation to be distinct from "Fame", "Importance" and "Popularity". The article should be of Encyclopedic suitability. Encyclopedic Suitability is established by topic matter that warrants notability do to public interest established by Multiple Independent Sources. Multiple meaning, Not Trivial but less than Exclusive. Two because using the notability of those involved with the film does not necessarily make the film notable. However the attempted usage of the film "The Bourne Ultimatum" seems like a strong argument. But to rebuttal that attempt I will use a film meeting similar Notable consistencies from your point of view. The film "Postman" Directed by Kevin Costner. He, by your interpretation of Notable Requirements, is notable. He is a notable director. The film was based of a Notable book with Notable Actor's, a notable Production company and a Notable Distribution company, etc. Yet the film was not notable (By your own Interpretation of the Nobility Guidelines), had very poor reviews and made no money at the box office. To state that a film listed here on wiki needs to only be listed if all involved are Notable by your interpretation of Notable Requirements is going to make a notable film is Crystal Ball. The Notability of those involved with a film does not make the film Notable or ensure by your interpretation that the film will be Notable. The Notability factor by your interpretation is decided by the viewers and no one can anticipate the outcome till the film is released! Also it is interesting that you chose that particular film because one of the Actor's Bio Articles you put up for Deletion Review here for not having any Notability by your Interpretation, Mr. Robert Gordan Spencer has a credit for working on that film and also has a picture with the Director, Paul Greengrass from the set while working on that film as well as with Mr. Matt Damon while working on set on that film. Here is the URL to both pictures which is stored on Mr. Robert Gordon Spencer's official myspace page.

http://a298.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/8/l_aed633a313bd448f1bd35956d15fc3f1.jpg http://a243.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/57/l_edbb8ecf9ea094a098c9d77b84d27092.jpg Mr. Gordon has also made several appearances on Saturday Night Live. Also note that both of those pictures are also on IMDb.com not only on Mr. Gordon's IMDb.com Profile but also that of the Movie Page for the film and the pictures were taken by the Universal Pictures Set Photographer. Also Mr. David McDivitt, whom is also on this list for Deletion Review as not having a Notability by your interpretation has had credits in films such as "Final Approach" with Anthony Michael Hall, "Posiedon" Starring Kurt Russell and Richard Dryfus. Mr. McDivitt was a principal cast member on the series "Over There" and has appeared as a guest on "Jimmie Kimmel Live". His IMDb.com is http://imdb.com/name/nm1796851/. And I believe him to be Notable by your interpretation of Nobility. So again I stress that all these being blanketed together is deceiving and confusing. talk 23:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, WP:CRYSTAL (as well as possible notability concerns). >Radiant< 10:57, 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. Singularity 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of superheroes

Lists of superheroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Redundant to Category:Lists of superheroes. The usual reason for having a list that duplicates a category is the ability to add redlinks and encourage new articles. This reason doesn't apply to lists of lists such as this, because list guidelines state that redlinks and nonexistant lists should not be added to these, so this does nothing the category can't. Masaruemoto 03:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete per nom. I think categories would be the better way to go here Corpx 14:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. `'Míkka 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bigdaddy1981 22:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the presence (at the bottom of all the blue-linked articles) of a link to Category:Lists of superheroes makes this somewhat redundant. However, there's no reason that both can't exist. Mandsford 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is in fact a list of lists. As such it duplicates a category (but badly). The underlying lists deserve to remain because there are many entries without articles, though whether many of the heroes in those lists deserve to appear is a matter on which I am no judge. My initial reaction was merely to make a comment, but I now see no use in its continued existence. Peterkingiron 22:28, 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 delete. Krimpet 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of atheists who support evolutionary theory

List of atheists who support evolutionary theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A pointless list created solely to push the creators POV, that evolution is part of some atheist agenda. ornis (t) 03:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete This article seems devoid of context, with only one autobiography as a reference. I fail to see the need for such an article, personally. Ariel♥Gold 03:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is like a list of atheists that believe in the Big Bang. It is pointless POV pushing. Jmm6f488 03:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:OR and pov pushing. --Evb-wiki 04:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Entirely pointless. An article on Atheists who don't believe in evolution would be interesting though. Nick mallory 04:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivial intersection Corpx 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely pointless (or inane, or dumb - everyone already said "pointless"...) First of all, the distinction between atheist and agnostic is all but impossible as there is no generally accepted definition of either. Next, why divide the listed people into agnostics and atheists when to all intents and purposes they represent the same mentality. Finally, atheists accept evolution as a matter of course - if they didn't, they wouldn't be atheists. An article like this is as dumb as a List of Christians who believe Jesus resurrected would be. Delete and salt this article asap, for Chrissakes! Er, I mean for the sake of science! --Targeman 05:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - List has no value as an information resource. I don't pretend to know the article creator's inner thoughts in creating this article, but the apparent purpose of the article is to suggest that evolution is some sort of atheist agenda. --orlady 05:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, topic is too specific, list is too short, devoid of context. Seems like this was only created to push a POV. JIP | Talk 05:54, 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. Singularity 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Coyne

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

Tagged with a {{prod}} yesterday, prod was removed with the comment Removal of unverifiable data. Following edits were more spamish, and SiobhanHansa tagged with {{db-spam}}, but I figured that since the prod was removed, it should come here, at least for a little bit. Obvious WP:COI and WP:SPAM issues, not to mention completely unverifiable, Google hits only show a few hits, all of them written in the same style. Strong Delete CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Spam. Jmm6f488 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also, completely WP:OR providing no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 04:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteKww 12:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very unencyclopedic, adds no value to Wikipedia as written, and doesn't look salvagable. -- SiobhanHansa 13:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Member of a band which made 3 CDs (by my count), 2 of which were never released, 1 of which isn't available in any major outlet (except WalMart, and, even then, in a download). Barring that, major claim to notability seems to be gigging around the Eastern Seaboard.--Sethacus 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. From what I can see, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the OP was also the subject. Pat Payne 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be a classic candidate for G11 deletion, except now that it's in AfD, it should have the full process. According to WP:MUSIC we would expect to see prizes, national concert tours, or two or more records with a major label. We don't see this. Setting aside the self-promotion, we don't appear to have notability. EdJohnston 22:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the G11 - you'll notice in the history that the more egregious spam appeared after I added the {{prod}}. Had that been there when I first came on this article, I wouldn't have thought twice. As it is, I considered a A7, but there was some notability asserted toward the end. I'm still not very skilled at walking the fine line between speedy and not. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 22:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unformatted unencyclodic bilge. COI problem merely puts the top hat on it. Bigdaddy1981 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nomination and salt. Burntsauce 21:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and flush twice.--Mantanmoreland 15:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above -- but I will be bold and userfy the content. Maybe he can be more successful, both as an editor and a musician, in the future. Bearian 02:45, 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 info MERGED to General Mills (there was another suggestion but I think this is the best one) - Nabla 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Millsberry

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

Prod with reason "Significance unclear per WP:WEB". I'm moving it here for a wider discussion as it is mentioned on the Advergaming article, and it has been worked on by a variety of editors since creation in 2005. My listing is neutral SilkTork 15:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep or merge. Semi-notable website maintained by General Mills. I'm not totally certain of its potential for expansion (it's been a stub for 2 years), so maybe it could just be merged into the General Mills article. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I can see the potential for a redirect. And I'm always more in favour of redirects than deletions, as the existence of an article does reveal some interest. A deletion frustrates any future interest, where a redirect will point a reader in a suitable direction. Advergaming is another possible redirect - especially as it is already discussed there. SilkTork 12:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm just not seeing any notability here. Yes, it's there, it's from General Mills, but where are the references? Deiz talk 23:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've just added two non-blog and non-General Mills references - there are more out there. It appears to be one of the more significant of these new advergames. I'm coming round to thinking that it may be notable enough to have its own stand alone article, though I'm not entirely convinced that a redirect to Advergaming wouldn't be the better idea.SilkTork 12:09, 6 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 ♫ 03:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I'm not convinced that either of the sources (especially link 2) give "significant coverage" Corpx 05:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge The advergames have become a controverial topic, and this one seems notable, so if the article can not me kept, merge and dedirect to another article, such as general mills. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 12:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, DemandGen is a niche industry publication, IGO ref is passing in the extreme. Neither site (correct me if I'm wrong) appears to have an article, as would be expected of notable publications. You guys have read WP:WEB, right? Deiz talk 12:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I found reliable, third party sources. Apparently, this is a very popular site for kiddie internet networking. Here's mention in the Washington Post, Boston Globe, CBS news, and an Ann Arbor newspaper. At worst, merge and redirect to advergaming. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 14:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • They're all trivial mentions though, and I dont think enough to be "significant coverage" Corpx 14:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (edit conflict), refs are from better sources, although still no more than a passing mention in any of them. Only the CBS ref does any more than mention the name, and even then is only a one liner. Deiz talk 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I suppose they are incidental, but between the sheer number of mentions in reliable sources and google hits i think we're looking at a merge and/or redirect situation at worst, not delete. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge The material should just go into the General Mills page. I don't see any reason why it will ever become a full article itself. Sxeptomaniac 22:47, 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 KEEP (no consensus) - several editing options were raised: ranging from what could be seen as (soft)redirecting to Wiktionary; up to expansion. Those are better addressed at the article's talk page. - Nabla 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article has existed as a list of controversies, a definition, and some original research as fluff for quite a while. Given the 500+ incoming links, I would suggest deleting this and transforming it into a disambiguation page, or a list. Wafulz 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and make a disambiguation per nomination. It's little more than a big list and a few definitions, and I don't see how an encyclopedic article can be made out of this topic. Sidatio 16:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Dictionary definition" the article certainly isn't, as it describes the semantic relations between the subject matter and other areas, rather than merely defining it.
Accordingly, it is the wholly considered opinion of this editor that the nomination is without merit and should be rejected. Thus, the verdict is keep. Digwuren 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The list has grown rather longish, and may grow more. Leaving only the most notable ones in the article and categorising everything under Category:Controversies should be given serious thought. Digwuren 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles ? read it Wikipedia articles : Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. Wiktionary articles : Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title.Thus No reason to delete an article dedicated to the concept of Controversy. There is only a need to improve the article. Keep and Improve.Oe kintaro 11:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh... and maybe a section for "Wikipedia Controversies" is needed :D.Oe kintaro 11:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think this can be an article. Look at it piece-by-piece:
  • First paragraph: Definition
  • Second paragraph: Fluff and original research
  • Third paragraph: An arbitrary quote to fluff the article up
  • "In law": Legal definition, links to a different topic
  • "In early Christianity": Different topic altogether
This has all the makings of a disambiguation page/list. It consists of poorly thrown together ideas in an attempt to create an article where there is none.-Wafulz 12:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • A section for "Wikipedia Controversies" IS needed indeed. So, until an alternative is in place, we should not burn the little unscholarly piece we got...imadf 11:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Note: Message was added by 75.56.196.129
  • Keep. The article is a glorified disambiguation page, but it has more meat than most dab pages, given the inclusion of meaty elements such as Controversy#In early Christianity. The existence of articles such as Controversy (album) points to the need for a disambiguation page. --orlady 19:55, 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, CitiCat ♫ 03:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - a dicdef, a couple of unsourced paragraphs on loosely related issues which would (if sourced) be much better off in more specific articles, followed by a rather random and incomplete list of "controversies" which I don't think could ever be complete or maintainable. Iain99 11:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- per lain99. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap'n Walker (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. A very generic word - cannot be more than dicdef. And there is no need to disambiguate: each specific controversy is not called simply "conntroversy". `'Míkka 20:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete By a strict dicdef, every issue is "controversial." The list would be inexhaustible. Pat Payne 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a dictionary definition with a lot of hopelessly vague stuff tacked on. Sxeptomaniac 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per orlady. Mandsford 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you in favour of making it a disambiguation page or keeping it as is?-Wafulz 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the small top portion and remove the totally unencyclopedic list. DGG (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — Many of the examples included therein are there for the sake of having an example, and are not very good. A total rewrite would be nice, but I don't consider "Controversy" article material.
  • Keep per orlday. Mathmo Talk
  • Again, are you in favour of keeping the article? Or are you in favour of making it a dab page.-Wafulz 13:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and stub Discussion of law and Christianity move article beyond WP:DICDEF status. See also links should be converted to a category and removed from the article. 14:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (supplement to my earlier comment) - Upon reflection, I think it makes the most sense to keep the dab notices for the bands, keep the first few article-worthy paragraphs about law and Christianity, and allow the long lists of specific controversies to be converted to one or more categories.--orlady 19:24, 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. Singularity 00:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Textpattern

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY, it does not have any coverage by well known reliable third party sources. Jackaranga 17:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • del nn. `'Míkka 18:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable within the web-dev world (speaking from experience of having worked with it and observed the community around it), subject of a forthcoming book from a respected tech publisher. Ubernostrum 18:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, looks like the book was published in May, which means it's now the subject of a published book from a respected tech publisher. Ubernostrum 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Also see this list of sources for information on notability. Ubernostrum 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, although sources could be better. At worst merge with textile (markup language) or TextDrive, or to a new article on Dean Allen. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 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, CitiCat ♫ 03:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep not the greatest article we have, but this is notable, and the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works" (to coin a phrase) --Xorkl000 09:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Xork1000. KTC 04:52, 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. Singularity 00:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Springwood High School (fictional)

Springwood High School (fictional) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A fictional school that isn't notable enough for an article. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Masaruemoto 02:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. How much could you say about it? It's hardly mentioned in the movies. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The title of the movies all have Nightmare in them, and focused on things happening during the night. That means only the most anal NoES fan cares about what the characters did during the day in school, and there's not much information to dig up about it. Nate 03:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Any truly relevant information can easily be placed in the various A Nightmare on Elm Street articles themselves. An entry for a barely mentionable, fictional school is not worthwhile. Ariel♥Gold 03:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Harlowraman 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of notability from real world sources for this fictional place Corpx 05:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Corpx. Seraphim Whipp 10:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and I'm inclined to say that if this goes, Springwood, Ohio should go too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Starblind says it best... since an article about a real "Springwood High School" would be deleted, why keep this one? It's barely a footnote in the Nightmare on Elm Street series, kind of like the Midvale College that turns up in Disney films. Mandsford 00:39, 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. Sandstein 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu story

Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu story (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This "article" is basically one giant plot summary. The amount of information is ridiculous and probably can't be merged effectively without deleting most of it.--ZXCVBNM 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - straight copy from here. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; I see Haemo suggested a merge a month ago, which was opposed. So delete away, this violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Masaruemoto 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Borderline WP:CSD#G12 copyvio problems. —Travistalk 02:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:CSD#G12 for the copyvio problems, and per WP:NOT#PLOT due to the nature of the content. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 12:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back into the main article. I agree that this is somewhat excessively detailed, but outright deleting it would leave a hole in the main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and summarize to make consistent with similar articles, e.g. Fire Emblem (video game). Article may be overlong and unsourced, but those aren't deletion criteria per WP:DP or WP:CSD. Turning it into a smaller section of the main article would make it compliant with WP:NOT. Copyright violation accusations seem unfounded. From the search results Chase provided, I followed all the links from the first page. All links that worked indicated content was copied from Wikipedia – specifically an earlier version of the Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu article, before the plot was separated. Infernal Inferno 00:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree on the point regarding the supposed copyvio problems. As far as I can see, the original source of the material was Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu. --- RockMFR 03:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I am against the crackdown on detailed articles. There is no copyright violation. The content was originally on the Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu main article. Deleting the article will put a hole into the main article. Merging it will not, because you can always use the History function to retrieve it. I am very saddened that there has been a deletion war on the Fire Emblem section of Wikipedia. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 01:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Holy crap, I would have suggested merge but the length of that is ridiculous! Delete, before it infects the main article. Axem Titanium 13:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the excessive plot article. Write an actual summary on the main article, please. ' 16:16, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashtabula Mall

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

Mall would fails WP:RS and WP:V. No claims to notability are made. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete While the article writing has improved, for the third time ([31] [32]), no assertion of notability has been made for this mall. —Travistalk 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This page wasn't made by the same author as those other two. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If that's the case, the comment at my second link above must be incorrect, so I'll strike part of my comment for now. I still see no evidence of notability, though. —Travistalk 13:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination.Kww 02:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I rewrote this article a while back (take a look at the initial version, it looked like a six-year-old wrote it). I would think that the prototype Kmart store and 300th Phar-Mor seem to be somewhat significant claims. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess that explains the improved writing. —Travistalk 04:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If this mall's Kmart isn't already mentioned in the chain's article, it couldn't be that important. Besides, for a cultural institution that is so widespread, one semi-notable Kmart doesn't equal notability. VanTucky (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Although the facility may not seem notable, the two points about Kmart and Phar-More give it more notability that some malls on Wikipedia. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 11:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)--
  • Keep A mall with a gross leasable area of more than a million square clearly meets the super-regional standard, which combined with sources provided satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per the ICSC definitions [33], its size makes it a "super-regional" mall. No super-regional mall has been deleted in AFDs this year. Per Shopping mall such a mall "serves as the dominant shopping venue for the region in which it located." A little research should produce multiple references, since such a mall draws customers from 25 miles away or farther. It would be bizarre to delete this super-regional mall of 1,074,470 square feet of gross leasable area, when we have just this week kept in AFDs article for malls of only 178,000 square feet Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waitakere Mega Centre 390,978 square feet Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southmall Manurewa and 396,000 square feet. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Manukau City. This is not the "othercrapexists" argument, it is an observation of consensus for notability of malls as shown by AFDs.Edison 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I somewhat doubt we'll ever have a mall-specific notability guideline, but I'm inclined to say that shopping centres of a million square feet plus are generally notable as major regional commerce points. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • comment The last thing wikipedia needs is another set of arbitrarily notable objects. I've given up tagging articles about any man that ever kicked a ball or waved an oddly shaped stick at one, TV episode synopses of obscure children's shows, and now shopping malls? Blech.Kww 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment That sounds like a new deletion argument: "I can't delete pro football/soccer players or baseball/cricket players or Simpsons episodes, so I will delete malls". Very innnovative, but not an accepted deletion argument. Edison 04:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Retort No, it's just an objection to arbitrary standards creating notability, rather than actual notability creating notability. I got a speedy overturned the other day on the basis that the seller claimed to sell stuff, and selling stuff is inherently notable. It sounds like you want "being a big mall" to be inherently notable. It isn't.Kww 16:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment In fact, no super-regional mall (over 800.000 square feet) has been deleted in 2007. The AFD results speak for the consensus of those who have participated in AFD discussions far better than a few fans of somethinbg making up criteria in a notability guideline. Edison 03:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Malls? What next? --Leocomix 16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Did you have a valid deletion argument you wished to state?Edison 04:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete size alone is not encyclopedic, and a suggestion that super-regionals were did not win consensus at WP:MALL. Lists of changed anchors has also been considered nonencyclopedic there. This is a good example of a large one that is not notable, at least from available information. DGG (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually I believe thre was consensus for notability of the few hundred superregional malls in the US (above 800,000 square feet of retail space) in WP:MALL which ultimately failed to achieve consensus itself as a notability guideline. Edison 17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per edison. Mathmo Talk 04:21, 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. This result is functionally the same as merging all verifiable content, for there is currently no content supplied through reliable sources. A redirect, with history undeletion, will be in order if a reliable source can be found to substantiate the nobility of this webcast. Xoloz 13:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Pixels

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

Not notable per, WP:WEB. It's related to The 1UP Show, but just being related to something notable doesn't make it notable. Me5000 02:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Well written, but not notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Redirect and merge content in 1UP.com#Podcasts. Nate 03:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of coverage in third party sources, fails notability requirements. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 14:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect any verifiable content to 1UP.com#Podcasts unless third-party analysis can be found. TreeKittens 19:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect I'm the guy who wrote the article. If this article cannot be, move it to 1UP.com#Podcasts. I'd really hate to see more of my work deleted. Keaton 10 Aug 2007. 9:26am EST.
  • Merge and redirect per creator of article. --User:Krator (t c) 23:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Just because it's not notable enough to have its own article doesn't mean we should delete it outright. (Sawyer 01:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete not notable Harlowraman 23:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable at all
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worst in history

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

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely related topics and potentially WP:NOT#IINFO. No inclusion criterion, although I assume the heading "List of notable events which are the worst of their sort" is the criterion, without any definition of what "worst" means in this context. Se we have the administration of George W. Bush listed with the Holocaust. And then there's "Achy Breaky Heart" by Billy Ray Cyrus. Three of the "worst" events in history. Masaruemoto 02:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per WP:NOT#DIRand WP:NOT#IINFO. The existing "worst" lists are enough. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete "Worst in history?" In whose opinion? Not only it is "indiscriminate information", the list violates WP:NPOV and has a far too vague inclusion criterion.--Kylohk 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOV horribly. Listcruft which will only flair up into edit wars. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per TenPoundHammer.Kww 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above uses, and listcruf. James Luftan contribs 03:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete May I (tongue-in-cheek,) say this is the "worst list in history"? *grin*. Seriously, NPOV is a huge issue here, as well as its randomness. While all the events/items listed may be "bad", the criteria for "making the list" is basically nothing, and the whole page simply invites potential controversy. Ariel♥Gold 03:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Very arbitrary. Quite bizarre that it includes a polio outbreak in which 10 people died but ignores the 1918 flu pandemic which killed more people than World War 1 and HIV/AIDS put together. And in Government actions ignores Uncle Joe Stalin who killed Holocaust x 5 of his own people. Dbromage [Talk]Flag of Australia 03:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; I've just realised this list was probably created to make a statement about the George W. Bush administration, since the creator was actively editing George W. Bush administration before this, and added Jimmy Carter's "Worst in history" quote to the George W. Bush article 30 minutes before starting the Worst in history list. In fact, the first version of the article confirms this was only created to make a point, with all the other statistics added later to disguise that. Masaruemoto 04:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, good catch Masaruemoto. Ariel♥Gold 04:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I'd advise against jumping to conclusions about people's motivations, especially on the Internet. That has a poor track record. --Kizor 08:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Utter crap. As Masaruemoto points out, the article was created only to get the Jimmy Carter quote in, which is the pot calling the kettle black for a start. Nick mallory 04:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Pure rubbish. This article is the worst ever. Absolute tripe. Michael J Swassing 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Bleach! A obvious violation of WP:NPOV. --Hirohisat Talk 06:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#IINFO. Bart133 (t) (c) 15:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incredibly vague in its criteria, a POV minefield, and most likely duplicates other articles and lists, to boot. 23skidoo 15:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Banal listcruft. Drivel and snipe.
  • Delete The classic ever expanding, POV list. The only useful part that I see is the links to other "worst of" articles Mandsford 14:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Complete POV garbage. Turlo Lomon 06:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete the worst list in Wikipedia history. Burntsauce 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Super-Extra Strong Delete Banish the creator of this horrible monstrosity. Pillory and stone the transgressor.66.212.79.10 21:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 05:26, 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 delete. Singularity 00:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Weinman

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

Nominated for deletion because the article borders on a conflict of interest (it was created by Joeweinman (talk · contribs), and the only reference that supports his idea (as opposed to deriding other ideas) is from his own website, and is his own paper. Original Research at its finest. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. No independent reliable sources. THF 02:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. There is no third-party sources for this subject as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Looks rather like a pirouette. —SlamDiego←T 03:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete My Google search brought up 3 hits for personal sites, first appears to be his, second two appear to be fan sites of some guitarist of little note, and the only other pages appearing seem to be tech-forum related pages that mention his affiliation with AT&T, and one Amazon.com profile with the name. None of which are what I'd call reliable sources. I'd say Notability, OR, and COI are all issues with this page. Ariel♥Gold 03:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and COI. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 12:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nomination and failure to provide reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination, fails WP:BIO notability. Burntsauce 17:07, 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 As has been said below convincingly, the "reliability" (in the sense of WP:RS) of an individual writer is dependent on the context in which he writes. A notable person's weblog is not necessarily reliable (unless there are independent sources attesting to its caliber.) Analogously, being mentioned by a famous person does not automatically make one famous. With that weblog as the only citation, the article is very weak. The consensus below is established by both numbers and strength of argument. Xoloz 13:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiWax

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

Non-notable search engine which does not come close to meeting the notability criteria of WP:WEB. If it were not a Wikipedia search engine, I doubt its article would have been created. Prod was contested. Savidan 01:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doesn't assert notability, either. In future, hit articles that don't assert notability like this with 'db', not 'prod' ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. I dont believe a review on a blog counts as a reliable source Corpx 05:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:WEB. Also fails WP:N. No assertation as to any notability is made. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 12:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, and a comment: in fact, Gary Price's (whose blog is quoted) is one of the most highly respected search engine and information service reviewers in the field, so his opinion does count for something; it's not just a random blog. Did anyone take a look for sources? It's certainly a stub; but that doesn't mean it's spam. -- phoebe/(talk) 15:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it was spam. Being reviewed by a blog does not make a website notable, however. Savidan 19:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep' Depending on the blog, I would accept such reviews. Gary Price has an article in WP, and his blog is accepted as a standard source and could probably b justified for a WP article. DGG (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Gary Price writing on his blog is very different from him writing in a published context. It's not edited by anyone; it not fact checkted; etc. Savidan 14:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Vsst 20:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. Mathmo Talk 04:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Surfwax, Inc. due to insufficient notability and importance. --- RockMFR 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom fails WP:N Harlowraman 23:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, the question for this article is notability, and it's really lacking. One review of a website in a blog doesn't help much. The authority of that person doesn't matter, he might authoritably say the service is good, but saying that wouldn't make the service notable in any way. - Bobet 09:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rich London

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

Originally tagged speedy, but I bring it here instead. His claim to fame is having a song nominated for a 2007 Juno award; doesn't meet WP:MUSIC as far as I can tell, criterion 8 is "Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award", nominated but not winning is not notable. Carlossuarez46 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Although he might just pass WP:MUSIC if he's been on a national tour, and Criterio 9 is Has won or placed in a major music competition, which he may have done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If he was nominated, but did not win, then the article fails WP:MUSIC. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 12:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Juno Awards of 2007 absolutely cannot have an unlinked or unlinkable artist listed within it — anybody whose name appears on that list must be a permissible article topic. We're simply not doing our job as an encyclopedia if we're not allowed to tell our readers who half of the people in an awards shortlist are — and thus I believe that the criterion should be expanded to permit shortlisted nominees and not just winners. (And no, that doesn't open us up that much to abuse; the vast majority of people who make an awards shortlist will already be notable enough for other reasons anyway. But being a Juno or Grammy award nominee should be sufficient in the rare case where it's the only major notability claim that can be made, because the award list absolutely must not contain an unwikified name or a permanent redlink that we're not allowed to write about. And removing the non-winning nominees from the list entirely isn't an acceptable workaround, either.) Keep. Oh, and incidentally, as far as I know his nominated release was an album, not a song. Bearcat 01:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bearcat. GreenJoe 01:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A nomination for a major award should certainly be sufficient, and if it is unclear, policy should be changed to reflect this. - SimonP 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per SimonP and Bearcat. Tim Q. Wells 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Being nominated for the Juno award for recording engineer of the year, CD/DVD artwork designer of the year, or aboriginal recording of the year, does not necessarily make the nominee notable. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for the argument X article exists therefore so should Y. The standard for inclusion primarily should be as outlined under WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Proposed changes to WP:MUSIC should be taken up in it's talk page. dissolvetalk 00:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody cited WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument. Bearcat 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bearcat. --Gpollock 05:14, 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. - Bobet 09:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We Feel Fine

We Feel Fine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was originally speedied as non-notable. Editor put in the barest effort to rescue it from speedy. It's still not much of an article about not much of a website, and I see no reason to believe that the situation will change. Kww 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I'd like to withdraw this one. I went too fast. Didn't see the teeny-tiny news link, and hadn't clicked on it. Indeed, the site has some notoriety. so the article stands a chance. Kww 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Let the AfD run its course. The "news link" is just a link to the site. Dbromage [Talk]Flag of Australia 01:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - So I must ask, why is the article being considered for Deletion? Granted it is not complete as of yet it is indeed slowly growing as I have more time to add onto it. It is upon a subject that has been covered by the media (With appropriate links on the site itself) as well as proven to be a very unique project by two men to document Human emotions in a very different and public way. I do believe that this is a website that deserves a Wikipedia page, as well as the recognition that such a page would be entirely deserved of such a unique project. I have long used Wikipedia in many ways and indeed have been a contributor both with and without my name for the better part of a year. Even if it is not complete, could it not be considered a stub? Should the Article not see any other contribution other then my own, then I shall slowly continue to expand upon it until such status can be lost as well. with my regards, St. Fenix 01:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I saved it in order to allow it to grow. This website although in your eyes not seeming to be much has grown to some notoriety and has been recognised by the media as well as many surfers upon the internet as a unique and interesting Website. Possibly even being considered the start of an Internet Craze between but not unlike All your base are belong to us and Myspace. I do believe that the method by which it brings forth its content is unique enough as well as popular enough to be considered as an Article of Wikipedia.

St. Fenix 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I shall be able to provide as many instances as possible that I can find of the coverage of We Feel Fine over the Internet as well as the Media. But you must remember however that several of the newslinks on We Feel Fine point towards Radio stations as well as media that are not easily retrievable online. It is understandable that these sources are left out. Instead and in its place I shall provide such coverage from all reachable sources online. I should also state that it is possible to Search these news sites for Instances Of We Feel Fine since most of these News Sources have a Search Feature. Because the link is not direct doesn't mean that it isn't pointing us in the right direction.
Here are several to browse for yourself, if you believe that more doesn't exist try various other Search engines as well as other methods to see for yourself if this site doesn't exist as something that people are looking at online.
St. Fenix 02:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and above. Article content fails WP:N. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 12:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep per third party coverage in the LA times and the Guardian (both pay archived articles, but the former is fully about the site). Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. In that case add reliable third party citations to back up each claim made in the article. The citation must be able to back up the claim being made. Dbromage [Talk] 23:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Keeping the article because the topic is notable and has received sufficent coverage is one thing. The article still needs a massive rewrite and cleanup to get to NPOV. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 12:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, also, uses way too many peackock words! Is definitely written like spam. --♫Twinkler4♫ (Talk to me!) 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and above.Harlowraman 23:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both a7, no assertion of notability, redirecting band page to Flitwick. NawlinWiki 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flitwik

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is the band's only album:

Condemned Beginning (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable band, Yahoo! returns nothing but fanpage, orphaned page.--Old Hoss 01:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Having checked the band in the Swedish Google, isolating results from Sweden only, I still can't find any reliable sources mentioning the band. Unless it's proven that their songs are sung on radio or has charted, I will stick with this for now.--Kylohk 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If deleted, suggest recreation as redirect to Flitwick as plausible misspelling. No stance on actual deletion. -- saberwyn 10:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, fails to pass the guidelines set forth in WP:MUSIC, and meets the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#A7). --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 12:06, 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. Singularity 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional interracial couples

This article seems to be absolutely beyond any concept of neutral point of view supportable on Wikipedia. It presents a list of fictional people of purportedly different "race" who are couples. Certainly some of the people involved are of different backgrounds, and some are of different nationalities, but the term is arbitrary and unsupportable. For instance, no French-British couples are currently listed but several British-British couples are listed on the pretext that they are members of different "races".

In its current form this is unacceptable. It is conceivable that it could be rendered useful by removing those couples who are of the same nationality, but I seriously doubt that this was the purpose of whoever created and maintains this list. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • But, "French" is not a race, as generally known; it's totally reasonable for an interracial couple to both be British. In fact, the page specifically cites how it categorizes race, in this case -- and "French" isn't one of these. It has zero sources, which is bad, and is a little indiscriminate -- but it looks like a well-written list, with a lot of effort and thought behind it. Given the importance race, and especially inter-race relationships have in fictions, I'm leaning towards keep on this one. --Haemo 01:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • This is, I think, quite right. The term is not, as used here, arbitrary and unsupportable; the lead, indeed, links to Race (United States Census) in delineating its scope. It may well be that the choice of that definition of race, or the construction of a list around a rather specific definition of race, is arbitrary, and this list may indeed suffer from the various deficiencies that Haemo gives (I'm, as Haemo, rather unsure about the article, at least in its present incarnation as simply a list; an article about the portrayal of interracial couples [under the Census formulation] in, for instance, certain fictional media might be more clearly encyclopedic), but an inability to comport with NPOV (or fundamentally be to appropriately sourced, such that [POV] original research should not be used to compile the list) is not amongst those problems. Joe 04:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Medium rare delete. Regardless of POV it's quite well researched and might pass WP:V via the character/movie/TV show articles, but dismally fails WP:N. Dbromage [Talk]Flag of Australia 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, I know you've put a lot of work into this. If anything, however, the volume of this list indicates that it's not really that unusual anymore AND that there is a lot more media now than there was when The Jeffersons first came out in 1975. Not that I haven't noticed... when "Saved by the Bell" featured a crush by Screech on the black girl, my thought was that we've come a long way. Mandsford 02:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Borders on listcruft, sadly, and I consider Celts/Anglo-Saxons/Gaels/Britons to be different races - what's to stop me from kicking up a fuss? Could easily flare up into something nasty. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per trivial intersection (WP:OCAT Corpx 05:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above, mostly. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep There seems to be a strong criteria for inclusion, based upon generally recognized racial/ ethnic groups, making it a discriminate list, therefore passing WP:NOT#INFO. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 12:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The topic might be worthy of inclusion if it were addressed from a historical perspective rather than as a plain list. --Metropolitan90 13:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Total synthesis. wikipediatrix 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the list shows how far we've come as a race {human race}; and maybe showing how far we need to go; also, the type of 'mixtures' that have been shown in the media.--Joel Lindley 21:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete worthless synthesis. Bigdaddy1981 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I further note that there is a clear problem with such a list; namely that "race" is not always based on observable characteristics. For instance, "hispanic" in the United States is, according to the Census Bureau, a self-defined category - not one based on anything that a wikipedia editor could observe. Unless the list is sourced to verifiable references affirming that so-and-so considers himself to be hispanic, its totally worthless and clear OR. Bigdaddy1981 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    Quite. The US government may sometimes be considered a reliable source. No source is intrinsically reliable, however, and a source that promulgates controversial criteria isn't a reliable source for the validity of those criteria. Moreover the very concept of race is rather iffy. To take one couple from the article, Johnny and Omar in My Beautiful Laundrette don't seem to be members of different "races" at all, They're clearly both human, speak the same language, and have much in common but are, in the film, divided not by race but by racism (Johnny is a skinhead whose friends go out "paki-bashing") which is ironically founded on the concept of race. How are they members of different "races"? Who claims that they are? --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If there is no such thing as 'race', e.g. if 'race' can't be based on 'observable characteristics', then how can there be 'racial discimination'? Just asking. Nick mallory 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
To clarify my original comment a bit, I didn't say that all racial determinations cannot be based on observable characteristics merely that some (that are included in the article under discussion) cannot be in all cases. Specifically I am thinking of the the classification hispanic as it is used in the US - its self-determined and culturally based, and as such cannot always be determined based on observable characteristics of the person. Bigdaddy1981 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As an addition to your excellent observation of "Hispanic" having become a separate "race", I would add that it would never have occurred to me, growing up, that I Love Lucy was about an "interracial marriage"... nor, I surmise, to most Americans. I have the same problem with persons who refer to the "Jewish race". Mandsford 18:14, 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 no consensus `'Míkka 17:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CEMMENTI

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

Nonnotable education program. Only 200 ghits. Shalom Hello 00:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Per WP:JNN, "simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable". It is an education program supported by Canada and the European Union. Most of the relevant Ghits are to Canadian and European university web sites, plus the European Commission.[34][35][36][37][38] The article is poorly written and unsourced but that is not a reason to delete. Dbromage [Talk]Flag of Australia 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. But for the love of God, it needs a re-write. I have given it a bit of a clean but to be honest it needs references and all sort. Verdict: salvagable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete fails notability per lack of coverage from verifiable third party sources. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No meaningful notability is asserted. wikipediatrix 18:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Keep. International project sufficiently notable for European Commission. Mukadderat 02:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep seems notable, we just have to add the sources that Dbromage provided. Ghits are not everything, this is a project from the EU, how could this be non-notable? Melsaran 12:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete of local significance only. 3 Canadian schools paired with three European ones. If it were a Canada-wide or EU wide program, then it would be notable. The refs are mostly limited to those schools, and are all of them internal. No third party references or notice, from the Canadian or European side more generally. This is lowering the bar substantially to a wide number of relatively minor exchange programs.DGG (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per DGG: no independent, third-party references for exchange program. Also, this article is an advertisement for the program rather than a record of the program's impact and public recognition. The topic doesn't qualify as notable. --64.181.91.112 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Every university has an exchange program. Who cares? 75.184.84.89 13:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Howard County Public Schools. Singularity 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hammond Middle School

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

Article is about a non-notable middle school without sources to justify its notability. Delete per WP:V and WP:N. --JForget 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, I agree. Silver seren 01:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Every school is notable to its students. Before an article is deleted, every effort should be made to find reliable sources. Valerius 02:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment That argument is a bit iffy. My company is notable to those who shop there, but it's not notable! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I was able to find the school website, but I still don't think that makes it notable. There was no news articles or anything I could find.Silver seren 03:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Just because a school is notable to its own students, doesn't mean it deserves its own article. It could be mentioned hovever, in an article about the school board/ district that it is in. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 11:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of notability. Notability to its own students does not mean it is notable to wikipedia. Corpx 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and my comment above. The school has some notability, it is a school, but the information is better placed/ merged in an article about all of the school district's schools. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 11:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article's make up is "1/3 vanity, 1/3 COI, and 1/3 "Hey guyz look wut i ded r skool iz on da internet funnyy rofl11" (spoke in slang for believability}. Why does every student have to try and experiment here. This kind of article is third on my piss off list next to vanity, and band promoting. James Luftan contribs 14:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Laurel, Maryland is the best possible outcome for this article. Burntsauce 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Generally, when a low-quality article about a school is written, it is best to delete it so that it won't show up in the edit history if someone later wants to write a good article. --Metropolitan90 07:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to the nearest locality or school district article. The low-quality argument is one for improvement not deletion. Silensor 07:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Speedy Delete (A7) No assertion of notability whatsoever.--Húsönd 01:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • redirect to Howard County Public Schools, which itself could use some not-a-directory-crap cleanup. Chris 01:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Howard County Public Schools. Moved to Hammond Middle School per WP:CAPS then deleted OR and redirected. Dhaluza 10:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Howard County Public Schools as suggested above. Yamaguchi先生 01:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:44, 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. — Scientizzle 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanford Harmonics

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

Non-notable college a cappella group. There are no references to independent, published sources or even an unsourced claim to meet a notability criterion at WP:MUSIC. The only "references" are to the groups website itself and to BOCA's (which was itself deleted for being non-notable) webiste. The external links to RARB, essentially the IMdB of a cappella. These do not amount to a bonafide justification for an article, as there is not sufficient sourced content which does not originate from the group itself. I suggest Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 00:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment is RARB a reliable source? Corpx 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply It has an editorial staff which selects the (limited) group of reviewers, so I don't think IMDB is a proper comparison. It fits some of the criteria of a reliable source; however, simply being reviewed on RARB is not an indicator of notability, as (if I understand their policies correctly) they generally accept all or most submitted albums for review. JavaTenor 07:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Just trying to put it in context. These are essentially amateur reviewers, even if these aren't reviews that anyone can edit. Savidan 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I added some links below which show that the albums were also recognized by RARB, not just reviewed. Its in the article as well now. Jairuscobb 07:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mukadderat 02:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Golfcam 15:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Savidan. Edison 04:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per these sources which note that the Harmonics albums were not simply reviewed by RARB, but have repeatedly been ranked among the "Picks of the Year".
[39]
[40]
[41]
The albums in each case are listed under the group name of "Harmonics"
To be fair, I do go to Stanford and know some members of the group so I am not totally unbiased.  :But I think these sources are relevant regardless. Jairuscobb 07:34, 12 August 2007 (Jairuscobb 07:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)UTC)
    • See above for why RARB alone is not an acceptable source to establish notability. Once notability was established, it could perhaps be linked as a review. Savidan 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Savidan, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I interpreted, the above bit with Javatenor to mean that an RARB review does not constitute notability, because any album can be reviewed. However, being selected as a "cream of the crop" essentially seems to be a completely different matter in terms of notability. I can see you arguing that the group's repeated inclusion on "Picks of the Year" simply isn't good enough (which is I think what this AfD debate is supposed to decide) but certainly it makes the group more notable than simply having a review, which is what was talked about above.
If there is an issue with RARB as a source, how is a source's worth determined?
Yes. Look for books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Published sources which are edited and fact checked. Not blogs or other web 2.0 content. Savidan 16:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, RARB is in fact both edited and fact-checked. JavaTenor 21:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, I don't really see how to differentiate between say Pitchfork Reviews and RARB, besides popularity and genre. Jairuscobb 05:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established by multiple, independent, third party sources. Nuttah68 14:26, 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 keep. John254 02:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanford Mendicants (2 nomination)

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

Non-notable college a cappella group. There biggest claim to fame is appearing on BOCA (which itself was deleted for not being notable) and being the runner up for another award. They were kept in the first nomination as a result of two human interest pieces in local newspapers. These are insufficient because they give very little total content about the group and do not treat the group as though it were nationally well-known ("area group is magical" etc.). Such sources are acceptable if cited to establish that a group meets a WP:MUSIC criteria, but do not establish notability automatically. I suggest Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep for same reasons as 4 months ago in the previous AFD. The article has, as refeerences, lengthy articles from two major newspapers, the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News, satisfying WP:N , WP:RS , and WP:V. The nominator has demanded a new standard, beyond "substantial coverage." The place to change the notability standards is at WP:N. In addition, there are a number of articles from local or campus papers, providing material with which to write a thorough article. The group has been nominated for national awards, and has been runner-up. Edison 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
These aren't news stories but human interest pieces. Neither of them contains a single fact (as far as I can tell) which would substantiate a WP:MUSIC criteria. Savidan 03:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is not a news archive, "human interest" pieces go much farther to prove that the subject is truly encyclopedically notable than a mere news story showing that the subject is enjoying its 15 minutes of fame. I cannot find a provision in WP:N which excludes substantial coverage in a human interest story as showing that the subject is "notable." Edison 04:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I friend of mine had a few articles about him in local papers for getting a perfect score on the ACT and SAT, a "feat" accomplished by thousands of high school students every year probably. The relevant part of the distinction I am trying to draw is not that we determine whether the story is "human interest" or "news" but whether the article is covering the object in question as a subject of local interest or a subject that is already nationally known. Savidan 14:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I said I'd avoid AfDs for a while, but I had to chime in on this one. Frankly, I can't find a problem with any of the sources, and I fail to see how the article doesn't measure up to notability guidelines, nor do I understand how substantial writeups in the San Jose Mercury News and San Francisco Chronicle aren't verifiable, reliable sources. (By the way - those two papers are about as "local" as the Miami Herald or the Chicago Tribune.) Regardless of how the nominator feels about the national reach of the group in question, the fact remains that the sources pass muster and support the article's notability satisfactorily. Add to that the fact that the group meets at least one WP:MUSIC criteria, and you have a textbook example of a "keeper". The nominator may have a better argument against the Stanford Harmonics or Vocal Point (University of Delaware), but not the Mendicants. Sidatio 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, easily passes WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Doesn't this pass #9 of WP:MUSIC (Has won or placed in a major music competition)? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Neither BOCA nor CARA has been determined notable enough for an article, so no. Savidan 03:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
They do, however, meet criteria 1:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

Sidatio 11:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think two is a pretty weak reading of multiple. Savidan 14:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. To me, multiple = more than one. Since two = more than one, two = multiple per most dictionary definitions as far as I can tell - for example, this one. Sidatio 16:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. per RS. James Luftan contribs 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. wikipediatrix 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Being a member of the group in question, I probably shouldn't contribute here, but I'm just curious...how long is this supposed to last before it is "decided"? Jairuscobb 14:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably 5-7 days from date of nomination, depending on backlog. Sidatio 17:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: As much as I have an affinity for the group, there needs to be a limit on how much sprawl there is on Wikipedia. I realize that people are passionate about supporting this Stanford tradition, as was my first inclination. To keep this article means that all other student groups with similar achievements should also have articles. As for "major music competition," there needs to be further definition as to what entails "major."71.137.224.197 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC) — 71.137.224.197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Is an IP with no discussion page allowed to be in an AfD? O_o Silver seren 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Edison and Sidatio Silver seren 20:10, 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 already redirected. Singularity 00:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dakota Valley Elementary School

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

The article is about a school that does not appear to have significant notability and it is also not sourced as well. Also, the article looks like some sort of advertisement and some blatant POV. Delete per these arguments--JForget 00:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete no verification of notability in independent sources. Wikipedia is not a directory of schools. VanTucky (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. How do we know that this school is non-notable? Has every effort been made to find reliable sources? Every school is notable to its students. The comments that sound like advertising are probably assertions of notability. They can be reworded, and the POV can be addressed through editing. Valerius 02:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Notability is not established through the opinions of students, it is established through reliable, published sources. We do not automatically assume a subject is notable without independent sources and work from there, despite what some think of schools. Of course feel free to search for independent verification of some possible notability, but we judge articles as they stand, not by guessing or assumptions. VanTucky (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of notability and elementary schools are not inherently notable Corpx 05:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is horribly written, and even with cleanup it would not meet the notability guidelines. I would even consider a speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 11:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no establishment of notability. --ForbiddenWord 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete due to verifiability issues... normally I would suggest a merge and redirect for this type of article, but to be honest I'm not even sure it exists! Burntsauce 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like it was authored by one of the elementary students. I'd say a second grader. Cap'n Walker 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article says, "The school is a regular preK- 5th grade school." That's the problem; being "regular" is not an assertion of notability. If a better article can be written later, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 07:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • redirect to Cherry Creek School District. Well, at least I found what state it's in. My own. :( Chris 02:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cherry Creek School District already done. Content was all OR, so this could have been done by any editor without trying to make a WP:POINT with an AfD. Dhaluza 10:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cherry Creek School District as has already been done; redirect endorsed. Yamaguchi先生 01:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, just another undistinguished elementary school out of hundreds of thousands in the world. --Cyde Weys 02:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect until somebody writes a nice article about the school that can stand on its own merits.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:45, 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. Singularity 00:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The University of Illinois Rip Chords

The University of Illinois Rip Chords (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college a cappella group. There are no references to independent, published sources or even an unsourced claim to meet a notability criterion at WP:MUSIC. Only claims to notability are placing for regional ICCA awards. These do not amount to a bonafide justification for an article, as there is not sufficient sourced content which does not originate from the group itself (i.e. its website and the sites it uses to sell its self-published cds). Take it to Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 00:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Sorry, but again - this passes WP:MUSIC, Has won or placed in a major music competition. (The International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If they won the overall competition (or got second), you might have a case. 3rd place at regionals doesn't do it. Savidan 03:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per lack of coverage from independent sources. I dont think their finishes at a regional competition is notable Corpx 05:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:MUSIC due to the fact that the group has won many awards. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 11:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The awards they have won are from regional competitions, not major awards. The group has never qualified for the national finals in a cappella competition. --Metropolitan90 07:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete They've never done any better than the semi-finals, even in their region. Not surprisingly, no third party coverage. DGG (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no third part coverage, no indcation of meeting notability guidelines. Nuttah68 14:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:45, 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 speedily deleted by user:MZMcBride (A7). Non-admin close by Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southland Mall (Marion, Ohio)

Southland Mall (Marion, Ohio) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Horribly written page on non-notable mall in Ohio. Even if page were cleaned up, mall would still fail WP:RS and WP:V. Hardly any claims to notability are made. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete no assertion/verification of notability of subject. VanTucky (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Was this made by the same editor who wrote North park mall? I detect a pattern... Arky¡Hablar! 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Indeed it was! I'll put Ashtabula Mall up for AFD, shall I? Excellent. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Again, horrible writing isn't grounds for deletion. This mall's complete lack of notability, however, is. —Travistalk
  • Delete I've been to this mall, and trust me, it is not notable, lol. Actually the only thing going for it is that it has a Steve & Barry's, which are actually hard to find. However, that's still not enough to give the mall notability, so, perhaps a mention on the Marion, Ohio page would be more appropriate. Ariel♥Gold 03:49, 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 Speedily deleted by user:MZMcBride as csd-a7. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North park mall

North park mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Horribly written page on a mall in Indiana. Even if this page were cleaned up, the mall wouldn't be notable anyway -- it fails WP:RS and WP:V. No assertation of notability is even made. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete with no verification of notability, this is spam for a commercial business. VanTucky (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No information is provided regarding notability, and the use of external links instead of Wikilinks shows that this article is most likely WP:SPAM. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 00:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. Arky¡Hablar! 00:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This page has already been speedied once. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC
  • Strong Delete Omg. Horribly written, non notable mall. SLSB talk • contrib 00:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. With no assertion of notability, this can be speedied. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While being a horribly written article isn't, in itself, much of a criteria for deletion, a complete lack of any assertion of notability is. —Travistalk 02:32, 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. Singularity 00:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vocal Point (University of Delaware)

Vocal Point (University of Delaware) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college a cappella group. There are no references to independent, published sources or even an unsourced claim to meet a notability criterion at WP:MUSIC. Only claims to notability are winning minor regional awards. These do not amount to a bonafide justification for an article, as there is not sufficient sourced content which does not originate from the group itself (the group's website is the only "reference" given). Take it to Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom. No sources to indicate any notability. The fact that one Vocal Point is notable does not make this one (or even Vocal Point) notable. UnitedStatesian 01:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Needs a re-write, and sources, but is salvagably, and if properly sourced will pass WP:MUSIC. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If rewriten it could pass WP:MUSIC? Maybe. But which criteria do you think it could pass? Savidan 03:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per lack of coverage from independent sources Corpx 05:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not sure why it is notable and no independent sources Harlowraman 09:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and the fact that the article fails WP:MUSIC. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 11:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No independent sources provided. --Metropolitan90 07:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable sources and no indication of meeting notability guidelines. Nuttah68 14:31, 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. Singularity 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Put Jade On Neighbours

Put Jade On Neighbours (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Radio program from Melbourne. Notability not established by verifiable third party sources. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nonnotable. Most of the article is barely verifiable fluff. Shalom Hello 00:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only Ghits -wikipedia are self-published videos and blogs. Dbromage [Talk]Flag of Australia 00:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable local PR campaign. NawlinWiki 17:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable PR campaign. - Longhair\talk 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There isn't an article on the radio show this is a segment of... there isn't even an article on the radio station! --Canley 02:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Put article on BDJAODN (Yes, that's a parody of its title, and yes, I say delete) - Well I find it funny! Giggy Talk 09:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. PR, original research. -- Chuq (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable guff. --Roisterer 23:25, 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. Singularity 00:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orion 10

Orion 10 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete this mission was 2015. as per WP:Crystal. Tanaka723 14:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Space missions are planned years in advance. This is not mere speculation, but is part of a series of planned future events. Valadius 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Project Constellation. --Darksun 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Valadius. wikipediatrix 18:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not a violation, it is scheduled to launch in the year 2015. As more data comes each year, more info will be added to the article along with sources.--PrestonH 19:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's perfectly reasonable to have a seperate article for each proposed mission in an overall space project. As Valadius points out, such missions have to be planned years in advance and any changes or cancellations can be added as needed. This isn't a proposed Britney Spears album. Nick mallory 02:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a valid article about something that is notable and almost certain to take place, per the linked policy. Please be sure to read the policy under which an article is being nominated. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Spaceflights are planned years in advance. The article is not based on rumors or speculation. Andy120290 20:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a future event, one of many in a series. The same pattern is used for STS, Apollo, Mercury, Gemini and other projects. Do you propose deleting them too? Kylegordon 12:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. --Philip Stevens 06:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Valadius. --Mhking 14:31, 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.