Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 10

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paulo_Feofiloff

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

In my opinion, the person to which this article is related does not warrant a Wikipedia page. This is not meant as an offense, of course: the immense majority of people in the world does not warrant a Wikipedia article! Indeed, having such an article in Wikipedia can inclusively become a nuisance for a common (living) person, specially when it is totally irrelevant as this one is. Moreover, the object of the article himself does not consider the article to be necessary, as can be seen by the comment left by him in the Talk Page. For this reason, I think this article should be deleted. NaaktGeboren (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC) — NaaktGeboren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak keep, seems to have multiple contributions to his field per his official page. The fact that this AfD is the nom's only contribution seems a little fishy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The article doesn't make a claim to notability, and his web page isn't working. As for inspiring in both form and content: that's a claim to be Spam. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete no real claim of notability, article fairly peacock-heavy, and subject has requested deletion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pete.Hurd. The professor's webpage is now working, and does list a number of papers that he's authored, but at best his notability is questionable. When a person of questionable notability requests deletion, I favor honoring the request. Xymmax (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per subject's request. Unless it's a slam dunk case of extreme notability we should delete in these instances without further comment on the subject. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I must dispute the policy Myke supports: What the subject actually said is that he's not notable. He's probably right; but that is one (well-informed) editor's opinion. And allowing people to delete articles on them on demand is a form of censorship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as probably notable. I think the policy that we pay attention to the subjects wishes in cases like this is an error. It is incompatible with the core policy of NPOV, and therefore invalid regardless of the unfortunate fact that it had consensus. time we realised that. DGG (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sune (algorithm)

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

Subject of article is not notable and is written like a how-to guide. This algorithm is only one of many that a typical speedcuber uses and does not merit inclusion. Paiev (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Actually, this technique is known under several names, none of which are notable. One comment, though... when the subject of an article is an algorithm, the article will sound like a how-to guide just by virtue of explaining the algorithm and what it is used for. So be careful, in situations like this, about invoking WP:NOT#HOWTO. See Quicksort. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I only mentioned WP:NOT#HOWTO because of the tone that the article was written in. Paiev (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not an independently notable topic; at most, might merit some mention on Rubik's Cube. --Russ (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ellsworth Kalas

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

Non-notable theologian. The article's been here for 9 months, so I didn't think a speedy deletion was appropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep:
  • President (interim) of a notable seminary
  • Has published multiple books
  • Google News search: 1 major article in the last month
  • Google News archive search: 166 press mentions

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep : He's the interim president of an accredited seminary with over 1,000 students. Certainly meets a minimal standard of notability. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - looks notable to me, per A.B.'s Google search. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A speedy deletion would never have been appropriate, for even in its earliest version it made a claim of notability, with two honorary degrees. I am startled to think it was even considered. DGG (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Having honorary degrees make somebody notable by default? Corvus cornix_talk 17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Notable enough to not warrant a speedy delete, as it is an indication that the awarding institution thought that he was notable enough to be honored. Not necessarily enough to keep an article from prod or AfD, especially if one were of the belief that the claim were bogus, but speedy delete is for articles with absolutely zero reasons anyone (other than the author) would be likely to object. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He is notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 would need a serious cleanup, on a tone side. Deleted, I can provide a working copy to someone interested in rewriting it from scratch. -- lucasbfr ^talk 03:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A possibility of Survival of Romanovs

A possibility of Survival of Romanovs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research, despite the numerous references. The article was created with the hangon tag, so it appears to have been copied from somewhere where it has previously been tagged for speedy deletion, but there's no indication of this in the article's history, so I have no idea where it came from originally. Corvus cornix_talk 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

DarkFierceDeityLink (talk · contribs) created earlier drafts of the article at Last of the Murdered Russian Royal Family Found and A possibility of Survival. Uncle G (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with House of Romanov. Should the references be properly placed, and be written less like an advertisement, I think the material here could be usable. However, it does not warrant it's own page. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Rename and cleanup. Right now it's written in a sensationalistic, rather POV fashion, but it does raise a few points. bibliomaniac15 01:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. The House of Romanov also discusses this issue although it needs work on sourcing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge All of this is my Original research and I wont lie its my high school term paper that I got and 95% on but I also had to write a page for each of my sources. I don't mind if you Merge it. And also the last part of the page was from the news and History channel.--DarkFierceDeityLink 03:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or move to House of Romanov talk page from whence it may have originated. Epthorn (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with House of Romanov where this article certainly belongs.Osli73 (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do we want to merge original research? Corvus cornix_talk 16:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1st of all almost every thing on this web site is original research. 2nd it has to do with the the Romanovs do to the fact i used history books web sites etc. like House of Romanov they prob used history books their notes from school etc. And this is something i work very hard on and people did say it did raise facts thats not mentioned. if you guys dislike it i'll remove it.--DarkFierceDeityLink 19:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on this site is original research. WP:OR explains why we do not accept original research. See also WP:SYNTH. Corvus cornix_talk 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But the stuff I stated is true its in history book history channel and on other pages of the Romanovs.--DarkFierceDeityLink 19:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If the article creator says it's original research, this is the only real option. Edward321 (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"" Ok how about this help me fix it so it could be usable.--DarkFierceDeityLink 02:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: General criteria 7. Page blanked by original creator, and only main editor. DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC) DrKiernan (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. Being blanked and edited by just one editor does NOT warrant deletion. Dengarde ► Complaints 10:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Upon reading the SD Criteria, I withdraw this comment. Dengarde ► Complaints 18:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments refactored. DrKiernan (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. Contrary to statements above, this is not "original research" as I understand the term. It is original writing, of course, but so is everything else on Wikipedia (ideally). It is a summary of materials published elsewhere, with references provided. However, I'm voting merge because the article is duplicative of information appearing on House of Romanov, and I don't see any need for a second article on this topic. --Russ (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chelsea F.C. and FC Barcelona football rivalry

Chelsea F.C. and FC Barcelona football rivalry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not a notable rivalry compared to Celtic-Rangers, Real Madrid-Barcelona, Milan-Inter, etc. – PeeJay 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Disagree: If the article was less detailed you might have a point, but Chelsea-Barcelona has been one of the single biggest grudge matches in recent years in the Champions League. Yes, compared with Celtic-Rangers or Boca-River it is a new rivalry but in modern European football there are scarcely two teams who want to beat each other more than Chelsea and Barcelona. There have been innumerable high-profile incidents, accusations and so on, listed in the article. Ask any TV channel director in a country like Poland, Romania, Slovenia or so on with no domestic interest in the Champions League and it's always the first match they choose for live coverage because it's the biggest rivalry. Mjefm (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence: Gabriele Marcotti, no less, describes Chelsea-Barça thus: link. If Sports Illustrated, an American magazine not known for focusing on football, notes it, it must be considered notable. Mjefm (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge there seems to be encyclopedic content here, but it's more about Jose Mourinho versus other coaches and a referree than about a rivalry, which I always thought was between fans. I'd like to see the article merged to the main pages for the teams and coaches than consigned to its own page. Perhaps the creator of this page was forced out of those pages, and made this page so he could put the information somewhere? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - you could create this sort of media-generated "rivalry" for any pair of clubs who meet three or four times. Not notable, as per nom. - fchd (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per fchd. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, if this is allowed, we could end up with almost limitless international club rivalries between clubs that have met each other more than once in international competitions. AC Milan-Celtic, Liverpool-Roma, Liverpool-Marseille, Chelsea-Valencia, Bayern Munich-Real Madrid..... King of the NorthEast 11:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge as per fchd and Fee Fi Foe Fum.   Jhony  |  Talk   15:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable recentism. MLA (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the reason CL rivalries are regarded as less important is because they rely heavily on chance (you have to actually be drawn against the team you're facing). Also, Chelsea have only recently become major contenders in Europe (I guess since Abramovich arrived), so any CL rivalry involving them will inherently be a case of "recentism". Can you name another rivalry between clubs from different countries (or, to be more precise, different domestic leagues) that is as strong as Chelsea/Barcelona? ugen64 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - so you're saying that we should keep the article because the Chelsea/Barcelona rivalry is as strong as or stronger than, say, the rivalry between Chester City and Wrexham or Cardiff City and Bristol City? I think that's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that you're bringing up there. There are very few rivalries between clubs in different countries, and since the Chelsea-Barcelona "rivalry" is only a few years old, this is very much a case of WP:RECENTISM. – PeeJay 09:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not a notable rivalry, and I don't really want plenty of articles about football rivalries of any kind. --Angelo (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Todd Berger

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

Does not meet WP:BIO Ros0709 (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: has previously had speedy delete tags but another editor removed them, so moved here for consideration. Ros0709 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, possibly vanity-self promotion page. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Looks like an autobiography, subject is apparently not notable. Fails WP:BIO -FrankTobia (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable Victuallers (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources could be found to support notability. Additionally, there appears to be WP:COI issues based on the user name of the article author. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kala Church

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

Suspected hoax. No references provided and none found for such a Los Angeles church during a fairly extensive Google search for both Kala Church and Kalas Church (in case it was a spelling error). See also an accompanying IfD for the image on this page which was uploaded by the creator of this article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellsworth Kalas. Corvus cornix_talk 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Response I think the hoaxter probably used Kalas' name to provide some degree of verisimilitude to their work. But since I can't find any mention of this church he supposedly inspired in anything about him (or even a connection to Los Angeles) I don't think the status of that article has any bearing on this one. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish even existence much less notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miles Powell

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

Non notable; claims of future fame. — BillC ^talk 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete backyard wrestlers are not notable unless they have done something stupendously special, and I can find no evidence that this 13-year old has done anything special. Couldn't it have been speedied under A7? "Soon to be champion" of a backyard fed isn't really a claim to notability...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, non notable. If he winds up on YouTube for killing himself or somebody else during backyard wrestling idiocy, then he might become notable. Corvus cornix_talk 23:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete to nip this sort of thing in the bud.Epthorn (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG Speedy Delete I can't believe this wasn't speedied either per Chris The Dude TaintedZebra (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Victuallers (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; will redirect to Seven Samurai; merging may be done later as needed. Mangojuice^talk 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kikuchiyo

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

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the its two main articles (List of Samurai 7 characters and Seven Samurai), and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, why does this one of seven deserve his own page? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Samurai 7 characters. Curious Blue (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & redirect. Eusebeus (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Given this is a signature role of Toshirō Mifune, I'm going to be really surprised if there isn't at least seven rice-baskets-full of sources on this character. The references and, especially, the book in Further reading in his article (which covers this movie among others) ought to be enough to establish notability. Keep, tag for cleanup and additional sources and expansion. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also, the Context section asserts notability, admittedly without references, contra the nominator's claim. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect. Movie is certainly notable, but the individual samurai are not.Kww (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Seven Samurai. Any necessary merging can be done later. Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kyuzo

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

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the its two main articles (List of Samurai 7 characters and Seven Samurai), and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Samurai 7 characters. Curious Blue (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, then redirect. Why does this one of seven deserve his own page? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per nom. So self-evident could be done via WP:BOLD. Eusebeus (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've been hoping someone from the Japan project would comment on whether notability sources are available in Japanese. In silence, though, let's untangle this assuming no notability. Per WP:FICT, the second thing to do (after searching for references) is merge, not delete. But where is, contra Eusebeus, not self-evident, and not only because the Trivia section contains notability assertions (in need of better citations) -- this is a character who appears in multiple fictional works with separate articles. Fortunately, the appearences are clearly marked. So: merge Film Version and Trivia sections (marked as citation needed, as that's a cleanup not deletion issue) into Seven Samurai, and the Anime Version section into Samurai 7. Because the latter is the derivative version of the character, the redirect left behind should point to Seven Samurai. —Quasirandom (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. Coredesat 05:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2004-05 Barcelona Juvenil A

2004-05 Barcelona Juvenil A (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Youth teams should not have individual season articles, especially not ones in as poor a state as this. – PeeJay 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

2005-06 Real Madrid Juvenil A (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Peanut4 (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's another one. Peanut4 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Fox

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

This is a gameplay element that does not have real world information to establish notability. The specifics are covered within the various articles (though a small section under List of characters in the Star Fox series#Star Fox team may be warranted), and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, nomination in bad taste Okay, now you're just disrupting wikipedia to make a point, whatever point that is. From your actions, I'm assuming you're intent on deleting whatever Star Fox-related articles there are, as you've nominated MULTIPLE Star Fox articles for deletion. I don't know why you have such a bias against Star Fox-related articles. Saying they're not notable or have no "real world information" are not an excuses or reasons. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, nomination in bad taste You have been recently nominating A lot of video game related articles, some I actually agree with, but most of them I see as bad taste. You suggested a merge for King DeDeDe, but despite major opposition with very little support, you carry through. I had prepared to introduce some more resources today and found that you decided to carry through anyway. Blood dripping on the ground 22:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per RingtailedFox. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete regardless of any bad faith, this article needs to be terminated (per WP:GAMECRUFT). User:Krator (t c) 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If you guys don't plan on adding Real-world info to the articles, then there's no reason they should exist. It's the rules. -- ZeroGiga 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete See WP:FICT (or the more stable WP:N) - articles on fiction need reliable, secondary sources. I don't see any of that, and articles that are derived solely from the original fictional work can only restate the plot or engage in original research. --Phirazo 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, gameguide, has no sources for real-world notability. An editor who nominates a lot of unsourced gameguide articles for deletion should be praised, not accused of disruption. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep unless some suitable merge target can be found. Too long to be included in the main 'Star Fox' article. Might go in a 'List of Star Fox ships' if there is such a thing, but otherwise fine where it is. Wikipedia is not paper. We have room to organize articles in a logical manner rather than cramming everything onto one page. Nom seems like WP:POINT. Et cetera - same issues as the other dozen articles. --CBD 06:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's too long because it's full of in-universe, gameguide, unencyclopedic "information". Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I have noticed that you have been posting links within his talk page. Your comments and posts are similar too. I think your accounts are connected some way. Blood dripping on the ground 18:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • AGF, Bdotg. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Game guide cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete- This article is pure gamecruf, completely failing WP:RS, this should not have been brought back in the first place. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Article wholly lacking any reliably sourced claims to real-world notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Change to merge - This article should be merged with a Starfox location page or Starfox series page. 68.60.62.128 (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merging the data doesn't confer notability to the subject, nor alleviate the need for reliable sources. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - just a recitation of in-game information. No information to show notability outside of the game itself. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best Kept Secret (Leona Lewis album)

Best Kept Secret (Leona Lewis album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I created this article on hearing that this album had been released, however, on checking regularly, I have never seen the album available online, so I'm doubting that I should have created this in the first place. Although it is well sourced, it is also covered in the article about Leona Lewis. ^anemone│_projectors 22:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, article is well sourced, album does exist (albeit only online). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per User:TenPoundHammer. StewieGriffin123 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well sourced, no reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiffanie Story

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

Insufficient notability. Only one other Miss Nevada has a page on Wiki, and she's Dawn Wells, who's actually famous. Bouncehoper (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sfacets 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources cited within the article, and most of the other sources I'm seeing are trivial (one-off mentions but no in-depth coverage).—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion because of copyvio reasons. While I did argue for keep, perhaps I am the only admin who has seen this so I am closing it. I hope someone can recreate it as we are indeed short of good articles on African academics. Bduke (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prof. Akwasi Asabere Ameyaw

Prof. Akwasi Asabere Ameyaw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic Ra2007 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete self-promotional? I can find a few hits - [1] - but the subject still seems non-notable. Shiva Evolved (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs major cleanup. An academic who becomes a university Vice-Chancellor is pretty well clearly notable. There has to be sources. Of course in some countries the sources may be harder to find as possibly in this case. It just needs sources and rewriting. --Bduke (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

*Delete Article has needed cleanup since October 2007 or earlier. Recommend delete. Can be recreated if notability established. Ra2007 (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Our coverage of African academics is thin, deletion of this article would make it thinner, and it looks like he is likely notable (per Bduke) although the article could do a better job of convincing us of that; it's not easy to pick out the important points in the article as written among the routine academic work chaff. But cleanup is not a good reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The whole article is lifted from here, which I wish I'd known before I made a bunch of minor coypedits to it (I don't mean that to sound snippy). Esrever ^(klaT) 19:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per copyright violation. Article can be recreated later by interested contributors. Ra2007 (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per ra2007, and i am the one actully trying to save the article.ive put it in a temporary location with a few changes and refs.Sunderland06 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep consensus is that it is notable enough with sources added being judged to be sufficient. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aviation Mall

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

Tagged for notability since September with no improvements. Overwhelming majority of GHits are an infinite number of cookie-cutter websites with showtimes for the mall's theater; no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be an orphaned article; half of it is pretty much just listing the shops. Also, I really see a lack of notability.   jj137 ♠ Talk 23:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as the only big mall in Glens Falls, or Warren County, New York, for that matter. This is the maul that destroyed the real location of Bedford Falls of It's a Wonderful Life fame. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Biggest in the city isn't enough; most malls are the biggest in their city since a lot of smaller towns and regions only have one mall. Besides the fact that this mall has a ton of big box anchors (which seems to be a pattern for Pyramid owned malls), there's nothing that makes this one more than marginally notable outside its community. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• As has been discussed in other AfD's, there is no 'locality' clause in WP:N. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Size and scope, accompanied by the sources provided, support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough, also has reliable sources. STORMTRACKER 94 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^One 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Digital Entertainment Network

The Digital Entertainment Network (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Conflict of interest due to owner of "TDEN" is creator and editor of the article. Do not confuse with Digital Entertainment Network. For more information on "TDEN", see [2]. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - this article was created as a result of concerns raised about copyright issues (which are discussed in this article) and were discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Digital Entertainment Network and The Digital Entertainment Network. That discussion covered conflict of interest and notability issues, with no definite conclusion on the latter point. Although notability is marginal, involvement with the more infamous Digital Entertainment Network is supported by a New York Post article of 2002 and the existence of the two articles ensures that the two firms relationship or actually lack thereof is recorded which seems a useful thing to do given the copyright issues which are supported by searches of the US Patent office's registers (and the NY Post article). This is marginal on notability but is a useful disambiguation point and does not breach WP:Spam. The company owner has sought to understand and abide by wikipedia guidleines and policies (after discussions) as opposed to the inference in the nomination above. I created the article and am the only editor - I am not connected with the company in any way and only came to the issue through the COI noticeboard. --Matilda ^talk 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Being sued by a now bankrupt company is no grounds for notability. The NYP article refers to them as the other DEN, not the DEN that blew through millions. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable company. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted by DJ Clayworth. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lakeview Plaza

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

Not sure why this page wasn't deleted; it was bundled with Edgelake Plaza in a previous discussion. Anyway, this page is bloated with indiscriminate info and fails WP:RS; a search online could barely even confirm that it existed (since it evidently closed in the 1990s and was a very small mall). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. I've tagged with {{db-afd}}, which was made for cases in which an admin closing an AfD forgot to delete an article. Deor (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, didn't know about that one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about it either until I pointed out to an admin that he'd forgotten to delete one article in a group AfD that he'd closed. He said that I should have just slapped that tag on the article, so it stuck in my mind. Deor (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beach Yoga

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

Obscure neologism, may deserve one sentence mention in Yoga article, but not entire article. Sfacets 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; unverified neologism. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yes, I know the discussion was only open for two hours, but eight valid "keep"s in only two hours is a lot, so I don't think that I'm applying WP:SNOW out of haste (especially since the article was improved during the discussion). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brigantine Yankee

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

unencyclopedic Ra2007 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- we have 1000s of articles about notable historic ships. Take a look at the Irving Johnson article -- it includes numerous books and National Geographic articles about Johnson's travels in this sailing ship. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is new, one month old, and should be worked up. It has book references. It is a notable last of line. Link to Irving Johnson page.ClemRutter (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This ship is notable for being captured during WWI and especially for its subsequent well-documented travels with the Johnsons. Maralia (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, especially after Woody (talk · contribs)'s excellent cleanup and wikification. TomTheHand (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent is a wee bit much, I did what I can for now. It piqued my interest. :) Woody (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I gave it a quick copyedit, WP:MOS fixes and a better hook in the WP:LEAD. I disagree with the nominator that it is unencyclopedic. I believe it conforms to the relevant guidelines as it is notable, as is shown by the plentiful sources. Woody (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per A.B. Clearly encyclopedic. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable; featured in Captain Villers' National Geographic book "Men, Ships and the Sea". Kablammo (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously "encyclopedic". Nick mallory (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berkley Mall - Goldsboro

Berkley Mall - Goldsboro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable small mall in North Carolina, fails WP:RS. An online search turned up nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; no evidence of notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nominator, nothing to prove notability in this stub. Malinaccier (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daddy X

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

Non-notable head of a non-notable indie record label. No independent sources cited. Fails WP:MUSIC will381796 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources cited by the article suggest that the subject is notable, though they could be better used. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Daddy X is a notable person that belongs to a notable band. I think he's good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.80.152.109 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 11 December 2007
• Strong keep. Please read Kottonmouth Kings and note that this guy is their frontman. The article needs improving, but that's a good reason to improve an article and a bad reason to nuke one. tomasz. 20:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fib (poetry)

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

Basically this article asserts notability but does not sufficiently establish it. The two sources are a blog and a NY times article that uses the blog and blog author as it's source. Fails WP:WEB and WP:BK. Since the article only mentions the one author, it's borderline promotional material. Delete TheRingess (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- A quick Google News archive search turns up multiple press mentions including two full New York Times articles.[3][4] about these 0-1-1-2-3-5-8 poems.

So

that's

a good

reason to

keep this article

to read in Wikipedia

--A. B. ^(talk) 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 22:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:BK doesn't apply, since it's an article about not a book but a poetic form. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per AB. Media coverage is easy to find. Zagalejo^^^ 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per AB. Notability has been established. An article has also been posted on poetryfoundation.org, which I have just linked in a new external links section. Aleta (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability demonstrated by AB. Lawrence Cohen 17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Square Mall

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

Non-notable shopping mall in South Carolina. Tagged for refs since August with no improvement. A search for information turned up nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this newspaper has several articles.... I just dont have the required Javascript enabled on this terminal. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Mall is smaller then what generally qualifies as notable in the US. No assertion of notability in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Size has nothing to do with notability. Unless you think a Quark is not notable also? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Power Yoga

Progressive Power Yoga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable, possibly spam, does not merit own article. Sfacets 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete When you remove the unverified assertions of fluff, there's no content left. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Contact me if you want to transwiki. Coredesat 05:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death Egg

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

This is a fictional location that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in Dr. Eggman and the games that it appears, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:GAMECRUFT. We need to get more efficient at this. Changing to Redirect to Dr. Eggman per User:Sceptre below. User:Krator (t c) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Krator. Shiva Evolved (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, nomination in bad taste, user of sockpuppets. I think TTN is using sockpuppets, specifically Krator and Shiva Evolved. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment That's a serious accusation. Your evidence? -Verdatum (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  RingtailedFox, I can assure you that these editors are not sock-puppets of TTN (and neither am I). I advice you politely to not let wikistress get to you so that you do and say things that you later regret. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  After reading what a sockpuppet is, I must say I am a little amused rather than taking offense. Shiva Evolved (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to show WP:N. WP:RS. Redundant information to other articles that does not appear worthy or needing of a fork. -Verdatum (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly transwiki if someone wants it, per nom and also per WP:NOT#GUIDE. It is unlikely that there's significant secondary coverage anywhere, making even a merge seem unfeasonable though not impossible. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The thing is, i make sure i say the right things before posting them. My evidence for this? they all compliment each other on their actions, all follow each other (and me) to nominate video-game-related articles for merge or (preferrably) deletion, and they have the same spelling patterns., with things as "he's a fantastic contributer", or "we need to get better at this" (this being mass-nominating articles for deletion using bots). RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Checkuser if you're sure, anything else just muddies the water. The reason that these articles are AfD'ed is because they fail too many policies and guidelines to be "repaired", nothing else. If you wish to avoid AfD (a reasonable thing), bring articles in line with policies and guidelines before the chance of AfD comes up. Sometimes, this may not be possible at all, and the only option is to AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete after transwiki'ing to Sonic News Network wiki if they want it - article entirely consisting of in-universe details with no sources establishing real-world notability. --Stormie (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT#GUIDE/WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Lawrence Cohen 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dr. Eggman. It's a plausible search term, but can't go to either Sonic 2 or Sonic 3. Will ^(talk) 19:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable secondary sources, no notability claimed outside of Sonic the Hedgehog. A redirect after the deletion may be a good idea, though; redirects are cheap. --Phirazo 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 22:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tornado (Sonic the Hedgehog)

Tornado (Sonic the Hedgehog) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a fictional vehicle that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in Miles "Tails" Prower, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• See no chance of enough real world info ever, so frag David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This item is too narrow in its coverage and can never satisfy the Wikiproject video games guidelines, see WP:GAMECRUFT. User:Krator (t c) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Needs to establish notability to avoid deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge this article should be merged into Miles "Tails" Prower, for it is his plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FangzofBlood (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Agreed. Since it is his craft, it should be merged into his article, cuz it just ain't cuttin' it on its own. No doubt. ZeroGiga 00:25, 11 December 2007
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT#GUIDE/WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I would ask you to consider it that some of the information should be merged due to WP:REL. FangzofBlood 15:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  Feel-free - now would be the best time to merge what you will. --Jack Merridew 11:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect. No real world content. Agree that it is gamecruft. Eusebeus (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per notability and verifiability with appearances in multiple media. The article is referenced, asserts notability, and is presented well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parkour in popular culture

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

This is simply a cluttered trivial list. Wikipedia isn't a directory. The sourcing appears to be poor as well, as much of it is links to music videos where parkour is featured. This seems to be yet another "let's move the clutter from the main article, into a never ending new clutter". Being a popular thing for music videos can be explained with a few examples in a paragraph or so, on the main article. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• A comprehensive list is not necessary. Merge some of the most significant appearances (preferably using reliable sources to determine significance) into the main Parkour article. Powers ^T 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please no, the consensus was to split this section to a new article, and we should not merge back due to issues with article size. Parkour will never be featured with this section, because people will re-add every time a citation in book, film, documentary, video game, etc, if they are missing. And how will you get consensus for what is "most significant appearances" and "insignificant appearances"? No you cannot because that is a lot subjective, what you think is not significant to you will be to another person. There is no way to say that Generation Yamakasi documentary is more significant than Madonna - Jump video. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, two people does not a consensus make. Second of all, the way to deal with persistent additions of inappropriate material is to remove it when it appears, not create a "holding area" where bad edits can go. We determine what's significant the same way we do it throughout the encyclopedia: by appealing to reliable, independent sources. Powers ^T 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, what make a consensus is the power of arguments NOT the number of people. Second, the way to do with your premature and bite view as "inappropriate material" and "bad edits" is to wait someone to fix the edits, warn every user to use independent sources when editing Wikipedia, or remove the original research after failed to find sources. Warning users is not even possible and difficult due to dynamic IPs. Third, it is unacceptable someone who think that Generation Yamakasi a reliable 71 minutes documentary with experienced practitioners of Yamakasi group, thinks that is insignificant due to lack of independent source, this documentary almost did not received any attention of independent and reliable sources, still it is very useful and must be cited. According to your logic this documentary is insignificant compared to Sébastien Foucan chase on Casino Royale (2006 film) and his participation on Madonna - Jump music video, since there is a lot of references for these. Fourth, please do not state issues with featured article criteria and article size, with your "holding area" view of a sourced article. Fifth, we determine what is notable and non-notable using independent sources not what is "significant" and "insignificant". Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my wording was unclear. Let me try to be more clear. You suggested that without this article, people will add every instance of pop-culture references to the main article. We agree that this is undesirable. Unfortunately, creating this article as a place to put "every instance of pop-culture references" is not the way Wikipedia deals with that undesirable issue. The way Wikipedia deals with it is to revert those changes when they occur. Is there a reason that this is not a feasible option? Powers ^T 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not a place to put "every instance of pop-culture references", but there is nothing wrong to state, which practitioners and what happened with scenes of parkour in Madonna, Paul Oakenfold and Sugababes music videos. Same goes television references in Top Gear (current format), David Belle's (founder of parkour) rush hour in BBC One; and film references, where there is blatant scenes of parkour. This article obviously needs improvement, but merging does not help.

I explained why removing what you think is "bad edits" is not a good option using Generation Yamakasi documentary. Parkour Journeys and Jump Westminster are other examples, which does not received attention from independent sources.

More ahead, Sugababes, Assassin's Creed, Casino Royale, and Top Gear were unreferenced. According to your logic, they are insignificant and should be reverted or removed, because they were unreferenced, but in a easy search I found references from Fox News and The Guardian. So, no this is not a feasible option. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're putting words into my mouth. You apparently do not understand what I'm saying, because "according to my logic" such significant references would not be reverted or removed. Look, you're the one who said that without this article, there would be too many references placed into the main article. You said: "people will re-add every time a citation in book, film, documentary, video game, etc, if they are missing" and because of that, the main article will never reach Featured status. What I'm saying, and what others here are saying, is that the solution to that problem is to remove the edits that don't belong, not to create a new article where those edits are allowed. I'm sorry I brought up the term "bad edits", but you're the one who said they don't belong in the main article, not me. Powers ^T 14:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Parkour. Creating a dumping ground for bad edits is a bad idea. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when merging this article to parkour will avoid your biased view of "bad edits"? Merging to parkour does not fix anything of your "dumping ground for bad edits", and this article was originally split from main article. So yours "dumping ground of bad edits" was in the main article. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

comment - If there were bad edits in the parent article, then they should have been removed in the parent article. When merging back, you can boldly trim out the excess. -- Whpq (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

First, you do not need to merge back to remove the excessive references in the current article. Second, I want to know your biased criteria to remove your judgment of "bad edits". If there is something to be fixed they should be done in the current article. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 21:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To address the "bad edits". The current article is just a dumping ground of trivia. A few examples is sufficient. Thus trimmed of all the excess (what I referred to as bad edits), one is left with an article that is more appropriately merged back to the parkour parent article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge in Parkour 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD is not WP:JUSTAVOTE. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Since I do not see a good reason/argument to merge back to main article, I am suggesting to merge with timeline of parkour. It is possible to rewrite and add historical and popular events in chronological order. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is a well-organized and well-referenced article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete in popular culture the way to deal with bloated popular culture sections in articles is to prune them, not to split them out into new "articles" entirely comprised of cruft. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 current state of the article (much better than when it started). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baconator

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

Lacks notability by itself and Wikipedia is not a menu. Very little info beyond the default composition. The only note worthy (and sourced) item is it being the official burger for the CFL. Wendy's Big Classic doesn't even have an article of its own, and it is arguably a more notable item, being a "core" Wendy's product. This would probably be better served by being in the main Wendy's article as part of their menu items. Indeed, it has been tagged for merge since August, but discussion in the Wendy's article closed with no consensus. Collectonian (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with the above, and would like to add that for most of this article's history, it has existed merely as a repeatedly and often hit vandal target. It isn't useful, or notable, and it just wastes the times of other editors reverting vandalism. I say off with it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge off to Wendy's and redirect there. No need for it to have an article of its own; it's one of many menu items, and hasn't really got a legendary reputation like, say, a Big Mac. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge As above --Quadraxis (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Wendy's - sourceable, but not needing its own article (yet). Alternatively, sourced information could be used to expand the article, such as the nutrition facts available from Wendy's, and I'm sure with a name like Baconator there's some public health lobby protesting it. Keep due to improvements and sources provided by Jeremy. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Hold on Give me until friday and I will get this looking better, since no one else would like to. As one of the few products that Wendy's has named, I believe that there is some further information that can be included that will prove the product should have an article of its own per WP:NOTE. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC))
  • I have found some stuff that confirms it as confirming to wp:note from the New York Times and USA Today. I also improved the structure of the article to conform with Wiki standards and have the same format as similar articles. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC))
    • One more thing, when you make an argument for deletion, please use the appropriate WP policy points to defend your arguments. please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Original Chicken Sandwich to see how you should properly argue your point.

• that being said, Keep:

Reasons for keep:

1. This item is a major product of a major global company.
2. WP:NOT - this article is not a set of indiscriminate information, and does not meet any of the ten general defining criteria set forth in WP:Not.
3. It is part of a major business plan for this company's corporate restructuring.
4. It helps to show how a company responds to its competition by creating new lines of products.
5. The sources include major industry magazines (Nation's Restaurant News), major news outlets (AP, USA Today and NY Times) and sites that deal with nutritional and health news, All multiple, independent sources
6. No original research.

Additionally, it meets the four standards of notability as stated in WP:NOTE:

1. There is significant coverage of the subject in the independent press;
2. The sources are reliable;
3. The sources are secondary, or when primary they follow the WP:PSTS guides for primary sources;
4. I generated none of the information, am not promoting the products, it is not structured as an ad (no peacock statements) and it is not a press release

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

• Merge As above --Matthew Cadrin (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep For reasons stated by Jeremy --DJBullfish (talk) 9:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, just because some people do not think this is "notable" does not mean it should be deleted. I agree it meets WP:NOTE standards. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John J. Flannery

John J. Flannery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While undoubtedly worthy, this person does not appear to meet the notability criteria; Wikipedia is not a memorial. Prod and prod2 removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as far below notability standards. We are not a local history website. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dhartung, WP:LOCAL refers to places of local interest, not local history; also it's an essay, not a guideline. I'd never seen it before -- thanks for pointing it out as I think it's very good. It's just not applicable here. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Google News archive turns up local news sports results for this person and someone (a son?) with the same name but I didn't find anything that I thought really addressed our Notability Guideline. Others may want to look at the search results and see if they agree with my interpretation. --21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)
• Delete. I'm not sure high school football coaches are notable. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm sure he was a wonderful person, but that by itself is insufficient to meet notability. Reliable sources to support notability are absent. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginary Coque

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

• (1) I can't find the band, its members and its one released album on the net
• (2) This article cites no sources
• (3) Can't verify assertion that the band was (a) influential or (b) critically acclaimed
• (4) this article is the only contribution by the author
• (5) suspect the title is a play on the work "cock" and the article a hoax
• (6) talk page shows evidence of hoax and possible vandalism

Absolute rubbish. Flagged as deleted. Conker87 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:32, 30 October 2007 Conker87

This is a fake article, lecturer from an England College submitted this to 'prove' that Wikipedia was 'stupid' Conker87 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:15, 31 October 2007 Conker87

pope simon man is a gay (i made a wonderful and valid point even more valid by adding it now)

Revision as of 18:06, 1 November 2007 89.242.55.145

– Talk page history

• Delete to me this looks like a case of someone abusing the openness of Wikipedia to prove a point-----Adimovk5 (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no citations, does not meet WP:N. Appears to be a hoax. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable and unsourced unless someone turns up some references. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Couldn't find any references, hoax.--Sandahl 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:HOAX. -Verdatum (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no resources available to verify this article.Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Nice patrolling by Adimovk5. Xymmax (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Good hoax! Lawrence Cohen 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YRT2 Arena

YRT2 Arena (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The arena has been completely erased from the plan books. It will not be built, thus it has no place on Wikipedia. Mikenucklesii (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The fact that it was cancelled isn't per se a reason to delete, but the fact that it seems to fail WP:RS is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete At first I thought it was just vandalism added from an IP due to no sourcing, but this link confirms the project was cancelled. Nate · (chatter) 00:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Fox (series). (History preserved, so merging can be done later if needed.) Walton^One 19:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arwing

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

This is a gameplay element that does not have real world information to establish notability. The specifics are covered within the various articles (though a small section under List of characters in the Star Fox series#Star Fox team may be warranted), and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Collectonian (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep I know Wikipedia is not a game guide, but this is a fictional aircraft that is rather prominently shown and used in a popular video game series. If you wanted an analogue of Arwings and Star Fox, one would be the Death Egg and Tornado in the Sonic the Hedgehog series of video games. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Collectonian (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT. Again. User:Krator (t c) 22:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment/question. would it be allowed to be merged into a section or subsection of List of characters in the Star Fox series, such as #Arwing, or #Machines_and_Vehicles? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 22:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's not really a character (I think), so I would say no. But if you can trim it to two or less paragraphs (preferably using info from the intro and from #Appearances in other games) and merge it somewhere else, why not. But it's probably best to transwiki it and link there. http://starfox.wikia.com/wiki/Arwing has a pretty good basis where additional material can be added. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is wikia.com run by wikipedia? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 22:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, but it uses the GFDL like wikipedia does, which makes transwiki'ing easy, especially if you'd otherwise lose the article completely. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather it stay on wikipedia. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Then the articles you may care about will need to follow wikipedia policies and guidelines, which can be pretty strict (because the goal is to write a good encyclopedia, not a fansite.) – sgeureka ^t•c 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if they follow the rules if they'll be deleted indiscriminately by overly zealous users anyway. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen an article that follows all rules being deleted. And again, please be careful with your wording. Goodnight. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/merge No real references due to a total lack of notability. It can probably be summarized on the series' page, although I do not see how that can be the case due to the way Star Fox (series) is currently structured. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - article entirely consisting of in-universe details with no sources establishing real-world notability. Seriously, dedicated wikis such as Wikia's are the best place for this sort of thing, not an encyclopedia. --Stormie (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• The subject is not notable, so it should be deleted. However, after deletion, it may be a good idea to recreate as a redirect to the video game. I (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT#GUIDE/WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per nom Will ^(talk) 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Its just plot repetition without any notability, should not have been un redirected. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Star Fox (series) as a valid search term. The article's nothing more than the sum of its parts, repetition of individual games' plots and has demonstrated no notability beyond that. Someone another (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. krimpet✽ 03:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Totient function/Proofs

Totient function/Proofs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. See Policy Ra2007 (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Also, Totient function/Proofs might be intended for Euler's totient function (in case concensus is keep/move). Ra2007 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: How about converting the article to PDF and adding a link on the page for Euler's totient function -Zahlentheorie (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Proofs of an important function are certainly worth keeping. -- Masterzora (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Transwikify to some other wiki project. Ra2007 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I really think making a PDF of the article and linking to it should make everybody happy. This is not difficult. And BTW, what other wiki project did you have in mind? -Zahlentheorie (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikibooks? Ra2007 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a textbook. "It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples." I agree that it could be transferred to another wiki project. --SimpleParadox (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment  : These proofs do not "read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples." In fact, I can understand a deletion if they did, but they don't. -- Masterzora (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: The page addresses the reader directly using phrases like, "Next observe that" and "we get" and "as we saw earlier." Those are phrases used to teach a subject matter by building empathy with the reader. The leading questions may not be present on the page, but they are nonetheless being answered as if they were. As I said, the page is still worthy of being kept somewhere on wiki, just not on Wikipedia. Cheers. --SimpleParadox (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TONE, which is about not using the first person in articles, but which states: "we" may be used in mathematical contexts. See also We#Atypical uses of we for this use in mathematical proofs, which is absolutely standard usage also outside the teaching context – perhaps even more so. Take for example Andrew Wiles' celebrated proof (21MB!) of Fermat's Last Theorem. This is most definitely not teaching material, but it uses "we" all over the place. The very first example of a proof in our article on mathematical proofs also uses the word "we" in this way.  --Lambiam 09:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Proofs require some form of transitional phrases such as those. The fact that they also appear in textbooks doesn't mean anything at all. There is nothing about such phrases that is particularly textbookish. -- Masterzora (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I disagree. You should also consider the "original research" implications of this proof. Ra2007 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: What OR implications? Are you stating that the proofs are all original research? Even if we assume that someone did prove these specifically for the article, I have seen most of them in class and, if I had spare time, I'm relatively certain I could source the proofs. Even if they couldn't be sourced, I'm of the position that the verifiability his high enough to offset the OR-ness, anyway. -- Masterzora (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Is it unreasonable to assume that uncited proofs are original research? If not OR, cite them. And then, if cited, the proof becomes a wholesale quote. Encyclopedias do not have mathematical proofs, do they? If the proof is notable, describe it (after establishing notability with third party RS). Just my thoughts. As is, WP is not a publisher of original thought, manual, guidebook, or textbook. Guidebooks and how-to texts belong in Wikibooks, Recipes belong in Wikibooks. Ra2007 (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I think there are many cases to assume that uncited proofs are OR. Specifically, if it's something new or novel, it's probably OR. If it's older and nothing special, then I wouldn't say you're necessarily wrong to assume the author to have done the proof from scratch his or herself, but it's not bound to be original thought, nor something that they they just independently came up with. We can also cite it without quotes, easily enough. Find a source that uses the same method, cite that source with the current proof. Thus, it's not a direct quote, but it's still sourced. As for encyclopedias not having mathematical proofs: that argument doesn't make much sense to me. After all, encyclopedias don't have a lot things that Wikipedia does (and should) have. And, as I said before, I don't see how it fits into the category of "original thought, manual, guidebook, or textbook" material any more than something like absolute value or any of the other mathematical articles. -- Masterzora (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • The behavior of the nominator, and "TableManners" and "SimpleParadox" is offensive. This is not good-faith participation in discussions. I do not contribute content to articles on how to do open heart surgery because I do not know anything about that. (I might fix a typo in such an article, or find the famous surgeon John Smith mentioned with no link to the article about him and add the link, etc., but I don't explain to the reader how to do surgery.) But those named here differ from me in that respect. Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, written in about 300 BC, is much celebrated, comprehensible to 15-year-olds, and very beautiful, and it would be strange to find an encyclopedia considering it unworthy of inclusion. Cantor's diagonal argument was a very unexpected advance, and considering it unworthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia would be profoundly weird. We have conventions on Wikipedia, long discussed by those knowledgeable in the subject concerning how to write and how to organize and how to title, articles on mathematical proofs. We have hundreds of articles devoted mainly to proofs. We have many thousands of articles containing mathematical proofs. People not familiar with those facts and who've never given them half a second's thought should not step in and lecture us condescendingly about these things as if we've never thought of them. Why was THIS particular "proofs" article chosen, rather than a policy discussion proposing deletion of ALL of them? People think I'm being rude by calling "illiterate" a person who thinks the only way to include a proof that has appeared in the literature is by copying it verbatim. That one could adapt such a proof to the level of the audience or background, while it remains the same proof, seems alien to this person. Could any fact be more obvious? To explain these things is to do remedial tutoring for weak undergraduates. They shouldn't be using this page to demand such tutoring. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I see nothing in this proof that suggests problem-solution textbook-type material. It's a proof, not a lesson. Tparameter (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Mathematics without proofs is nothing. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per JRSpriggs. What exactly is the objection to this article? I haven't been able to figure that out by reading everything above. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If this is made into a PDF, then how will people edit it?? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why should we tolerate people who write things like "Encyclopedias do not contain mathematical proofs, do they?" asking to be treated with the same respect that good-faith participants in discussions like this are entitled to? That's wrong. We should consider banning that user. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please cite a violation of Wikipedia policy by said user in support of banning him, or withdraw your statement. This article is about whether proofs of totient functions should be in Wikipedia. If a certain user uses fallacious logic, by all means criticize the logic. But please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Beetle B. (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Someone wrote above: "And then, if cited, the proof becomes a wholesale quote." Why do illiterates who write idiotic crap like this feel entitled to be treated with the same respect that honest people should get? That's just wrong. It is sickening to see the people who hang around the AfD discussions always feeling their entitled to push people around, when those they're pushing around differ from them in that they have some professional expertise in the subject matter and those feeling so entitled are illiterate and dishonest. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ack, Michael, a user being misinformed or new to mathematics on wikipedia does not constitute a basis for banning said user. It is important not to bite new users in such a way. They are the lifeblood of the project. We all (well, most of us) made mistakes when we first arrived here; it would be a terrible thing if all of us were banned for out first error in judgment. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 06:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The nominator seems to be confused about the difference between a textbook and any piece of text containing proofs. I can see how reading this article can be very challenging, especially for those without mathematical training. However, the decision to banish all proofs from Wikipedia would be a major policy decision and could only be made after a careful consideration at the highest level. At present, the policies do not explicitly preclude proofs, and de facto, there are many other articles of this type. Arcfrk (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The "Wikipedia-is-NOT" argument does not apply here. This is not the kind of material you'd find in a manual, guidebook, or textbook. WikiProject Mathematics has created these articles named XXX/Proofs to keep the parent articles manageable and easier for people not interested in the proofs (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs); merging all these back into the adjunct articles will not improve Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 08:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Nominator's reasoning fails to stand up to scrutiny. This article is not written like a textbook, and does not breach "NOT" Woody (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Rename as "Totient function identities". These are notable enough to deserve a separate article, but such an article needs to be properly named and properly written, like any other article. Geometry guy 11:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete transwikify to Scholarpedia. Sorry folks, but other stuff (proofs) exist on Wikipedia is not a good enough argument. TableManners (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That "other stuff" that "exists", exists as a result of policies that have been discussed at length, calling for it to exist. "TableManners", your behavior is offensive. I do not add content on how to do open heart surgery because I know nothing about that subject. But you do. As seen above. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Please try and stay civil. People are allowed to disagree with one another. Woody (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I find the behavior of the nominator and two of the discussants offensive. I've commented on this above and copied it onto their talk pages. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
        • You've mentioned it a number of times, but have not indicated what is offensive about their comments. Yes, you disagree with them, but what offended you? Again, if there is inappropriate behavior at hand here, please cite Wikipedia policies that they are violating.Beetle B. (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
          • My comments above, beginning with the words "The behavior of the nominator", says what offended me. What specifically do you find insufficient in that paragraph? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Most of the time proofs are not necessary in encyclopedic articles (there are a few exceptions though). It is preferable to have proofs in a subpage than in the main page, but this is a "sweep under the rug" strategy long-term. Ideally the proofs should be transferred to Wikibooks or some other place, but either way, eventually dedicated proof subpages will have to go. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment a general comment on AfD's concerning such articles. i would second Salix Alba's comment [here] that it should be decided on a case by case basis. (so i disagree with Oleg's comment above.) to come to a sensible conclusion, or to have a valid reason to start a AfD in the first place, some kinda mathematical competence is required. otherwise one is likely to start making painfully ridiculous statements and suffer the wrath of Michael Hardy, :-). the question is whether the proof is sufficiently non-trivial to justify a subpage. just blindly quoting bureaucratic guidelines is really a bad way to go about this business. Mct mht (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A case-by-case discussion is good indeed. My point is that one can't stay in the Article name/Proofs framework forever. Articles worthy of keeping should stand on their own as independent articles (with a proper name), as suggested by Geometry guy. Others should be deleted. And one should think think very carefully when spending a lot of effort in creating new proofs subpages. Their value can be rather marginal. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep/Rename per Geometry Guy. There's no edict barring proofs from Wikipedia. Some encyclopedias don't contain proofs. Some don't contain animated GIF images. "This article contains proofs" is not a reasonable deletion rationale. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as improvable to encyclopedic quality. In a very quick scan of the mathematics featured articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics I did not notice any proofs. In other words, the articles like this one that are identified as 'proofs' aren't very good as articles, and the best articles usually don't contain proofs. I don't yet see this as blanket justification for deleting 'proof' articles. This one has room for improvement, so let it be improved. Decide in the future whether this is a dead end, and we can't improve articles like this one up to the standards of the best articles. I know that Cantor's diagonal argument is not yet featured, and it *does* contain sketches of proofs, and I think it's a good example of what can be done. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with the case-by-case approach. Proofs are not inherently unencyclopedic, and there is great value in including them in Wikipedia: don't forget that Wikipedia is not paper and that Wikipedia's goal is to contain "the sum of all human knowledge" (subject to WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:V, of course, but proof articles only tend to violate these if they are not notable or are badly written). Proofs can be included in encyclopedia articles. They can also be separate articles, but such separate articles must be notable and coherent in their own right. (I see no reason to make them a general exception to WP:N.)

The whole subpage experiment (now more than two years old) was an interesting experiment, but ultimately, these are articles, not subpages, and so must stand up as articles in their own right. Calling them subpages just leads to bad writing, in which the context and statement are not well explained. For example, this article uses the same notation for greatest common divisor as for ordered pair, but does not explain it. Other "/Proofs" articles are worse, whereas the "Proofs of X" articles are generally better, because they are more self-contained.

My test is whether a reasonable article could be written if it were not regarded as a subpage (for one more time, mainspace subpages do not exist!). In this case, I think a reasonable article on "Totient function identities" could be written, so I say "Rename". In the case of the AfD for Boy's surface/Proofs, I don't see the case for an independent article, and so that content should be transwikied and/or merged, and the article deleted. Geometry guy 22:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I feel only notable proofs should be kept in Wikipedia - not proofs of notable theorems. The proof of infinitude of primes is notable - it's often the first proof by contradiction many encounter. Cantor's proof is also notable (and again, may often be the first of its kind seen by students). Both of these may also have had a great deal of historical significance. The proofs provided in this article are in no way special. Yes, totient functions are important, which is why there is an article on them. The proofs of its various properties are just details. I agree that it should be transwikified - Wikibooks if there is a book on number theory being worked on there. Beetle B. (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the proof is incorrect. we need accurate proofs on wikipedia if at all.

• Delete unless sources can be found for the notability of these proofs, and not just of the facts that they prove. I strongly disagree that proofs and proof articles have no place in Wikipedia; I think that proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π, for instance, is a fine article. But that article, in contrast to the present one, provides sources that attest to the notability of that specific proof, and has a name that makes it clear that it is an article about a proof rather than an appendix to some other article. Without such sources, I am having a difficult time justifying the continued existence of the totient proofs article. Little damage will be done to mathematics or Wikipedia by deleting the article; the facts in question will continue to have proofs that can be found in the number theory textbooks. It is plausible to suggest a merge, back to the totient function article, but the reason this sort of material was removed from the article in the first place remains valid: they clutter up the article making it difficult to read and even more difficult to find the important facts about totient functions among the unimportant details of exactly how to formulate the induction hypotheses etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Michael Hardy per JRSpriggs. Proof of notable thing is good enough. Lack of substantial reason to delete exists as well. Tparameter (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep because, as voiced above, the presence of proofs does not make something "a manual, guidebook, or textbook." The conventions of a field must be respected, if we wish to write in an encyclopedic manner. --Starwed (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As above, you can't have math without proofs. This does not make it "a manual, guidebook, or textbook." Kevin143 (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Lambiam and Kevin143. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I withdraw my opinion. In the future, I will ask Michael Hardy before I submit an opinion, mostly because I do not like being bullied. TableManners (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• That I do not like being bullied is why I wrote what I did. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons in Seven Samurai 20XX

Weapons in Seven Samurai 20XX (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the gameplay sections of the Seven Samurai 20XX game articles and is thus entirely duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. mattbuck (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as wikipedia is not a video game guide and fails WP:FICT. Collectonian (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Collectonian (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• delete not notable outside of the game itself. i doubt anyone would be interested in the weapons of seven samurai without taking an interest in the game itself. just keep it in the main article. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Not to mention very few people are interested in this game. It bombed, and rightfully so. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - transwikied to StrategyWiki:Seven Samurai 20XX/Weapons along with List of Seven Samurai 20XX characters to StrategyWiki:Seven Samurai 20XX/Characters. -- Prod (Talk) 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^One 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas Jones

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

Contested prod, prod reason is "Non-notable character. No source exists that would make the article more than a plot summary". Bringing here to stop a prod-war. Procedural, no opinion. UsaSatsui (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to The World is Not Enough. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to the movie article, per Sam Blacketer. No need for a stand alone article that just regurgitates the plot. Fails WP:FICT. Collectonian (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and source. See Bond girl. Most Bond girls have their own articles, and see the extensive list of characters at the bottom of the Christmas Jones article. Corvus cornix_talk 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • But there is no reason for this one. Other bond girls appear in novels so their origins are notable. Vikrant 14:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Further the article Bond girl is notable since they make up an integral part of the film series. Even the external links provided on that article have hardly any coverage of Dr. Jones. Vikrant 14:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this does bring up the question: is being a Bond Girl inherently notable (in the way, say, being a member of a legislature confers automatic notability)? I can't believe this hasn't been discussed before -- probably in an AfD -- with some sort of consensus. Does anyone know where, and is able to point the rest of us to it? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to The World Is Not Enough or similiar article on cast of character. The character has not appeared in books or games or multiple films. Alientraveller (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Some not-plot information that could be added: what did the actress think of the character and what did reviews of The World Is Not Enough say about the character. Bond films always get a lot of media attention, so sources should not be hard to find, eg [5], [6], [7]. A little bit here. Here's another article from the BBC about how the character was included in a lot of marketing to attract the young male demographic. Personally I think that all Bond girls are notable. Lots of articles are written about them (like the BBC article above), they are written about in books (eg [8]) and they are a huge part of culture. Bláthnaid 10:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  Denise Richards, and not the character, was involved in marketing. The rest of the sources stated above are just the actress's words. Vikrant 14:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  Denise Richards was cast in the role of Christmas Jones, so I think it is relevant. It is OK to use interviews as sources as long as the interviews are published in reliable sources. I have added real-world information and sources to the article. The character also appeared in a novel and video game, so IMO a merge with the film article is not appropriate. Here [9] [10] are some books about Bond girls that could be used as sources, and a TV documentary [11]. Bláthnaid 10:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete What the actress says about the character is more relevant to the film article than the character. There is practically nothing we can do in this case. Vikrant 14:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Source/Expand This character is obviously notable enough to have her own article (because once you delete it, someones just going to create it again), and is notable because she was a main Bond girl in a novel. It currently dosen't have anything but a plot summary but in time it will expand. And to "Vikrant", if you check other character pages you often see the actor/actresses opinions on it (eg. Jack Sparrow). It can be expanded, it just need time and an editors willingness.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offlineoffline)  05:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The character is notable enough to have a seperate article. The article just needs some expanding and general improvement - • The Giant Puffin • 10:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all it needs is a reference here or there, and it's up to par. _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with The World Is Not Enough. Fromseatoshiningsea (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - All lead female characters have pages about them so why can't this? All it needs is sourcing. Highfields (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - All Bond girls are highly notable. Tovojolo (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vultak

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

This article has no notability as established by reliable sourcing, is written in an in-universe way that is simply plot repetition assembled from the various episodes of She Ra, and is thus also wholly duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge into a single List of She-Ra: Princess of Power characters article (which doesn't exist) or the current character dumping ground of List_of_Masters_of_the_Universe_characters#She-Ra:_Princess_of_Power. Collectonian (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Janet Keogh

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

This article is an unnecessary fork from List of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps characters. By the time original research is removed, the article will add nothing to the the existing article. Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Epbr123 (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Paste (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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" 16:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skull of Yoruk

Skull of Yoruk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is just an in-universe plot repetition culled from the gameplay and plot sections of the Zork games. It asserts no notability with reliable sourcing per WP:RS and as such is just duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Collectonian (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Re-run of what appears to be a minor plot item which is covered already within the site externally linked. Someone another (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spank tank

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

Though it is a real term, it seems to have little chance of being expanded (so to speak) beyond a definition of a slang term. Most of sources seem to be on soldiers' blogs. Jacksinterweb (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

-delete - per nom.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki and delete. No potential for expansion beyond a definition. Powers ^T 19:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Any time I see Urban Dictionary as the first return on a Google search, I get a bad feeling. This is one of those times. The articles I found aren't reliable sources at all, mostly passing uses with no definition. Without reliable sources, delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom.Chasecarter (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No-IP

No-IP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is an advertisement for a non-notable internet services company. No reliable sources have been identified, and no sources other than the company website are used to establish notability. I recommend deletion. In addition, the article was created twice NoIP and No-IP, I redirected one to the other. Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Appears barely notable. Powers ^T 19:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well known internet company. Alexa.com statistics indicates some notability [12]. Julius Sahara (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is alexa.com a valid reliable source for internet company notability? I wouldn't think so, as it just tracks hits and links and advertising. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. No-IP is a well known internet company. Over 5 million downloads http://www.download.com/No-IP-DUC-Dynamic-DNS-Update-Client-/3000-2165_4-10375673.html?tag=lst-1. External references have been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaldan (talk • contribs)

Of the two external references that relate to the notability of the company, one is only a trivial mention. The remaining references are to either the company website or manufacturers websites for indication that their service is compatible with various internet equipment. Is there any news coverage of the company? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a fairly well-known service, that much can be said without looking at references or Alexa rankings etc. In any case, I think the references are decent enough. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metroplex Chapel

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

Lack of notability. After the first sentence, the article deals with minutia that only members of the church would need to know. Antonrojo 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(Note: The above is the original nominator's rationale from back in September, which somehow got blanked along the way. I restored it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

• Delete. This obviously does not meet notability requirements and would never be found in an encyclopedia. Few, if any, local churches would. Aepoutre 19:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisting, this discussion page somehow went listed on September 15, where it patiently waited for comments... Tizio 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• delete - appears in no reliable sources, not even local news? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability, reads like an ad. Powers ^T 19:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising, fails WP:RS too. By the way, is this the longest that an AfD's ever been open? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, G11 Pretty blatant advertising. Blueboy96 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Poor thing, languishing all that time with no attention. Delete as advertising. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted article transformation. Coredesat 05:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goth Transformation

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

This term appears to be a neologism with no evidence of notability or currency; the article is rife with what appears to be original research. (Full disclosure: this article was tagged for speedy deletion (G1, patent nonsense), but I felt there were no speedy categories that are valid for this particular article, so I untagged it. That doesn't mean I think it's suitable for Wikipedia, however.) Powers ^T 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I did a major cleanup to the article to bring it closer to WP Style, and in conclusion, yeah...this does come pretty close to patent nonsense. It is certainly a WP:NEO. I shouldn't even need to mention WP:AR WP:OR WP:N WP:V. -Verdatum (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Changed my mind. I consider this "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.", IOW, patent nonsense. -Verdatum (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I must be unreasonable then. It makes perfect sense to me. Powers ^T 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. What the heck! Jack?! 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just barely escapes being a G1 ... but gahhhh, this is horribly written. Not only that, but no reliable sources whatsoever. Blueboy96 20:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to say the rewrite made the article better than it was ... but still, only 121 Yahoo hits and 234 Google hits. Not enough for an article yet. Blueboy96 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, definitely. Apart from having no sources, I agree it's badly written and not the kind of article for Wikipedia. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt It like Ancient Carthage What in tarnation is this article?! It skirts the border of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Zidel333 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Uhm. Yeah, cool. Delete - unsourced original research. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural diversism

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

WP:N, WP:V nothing on google, "Wikipedia is not for things made up by the local parson"? Anarchia (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research / non-notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. —Anarchia (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of currency. Powers ^T 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, no sources. Jack?! 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. I got the same grand total of 0 Google hits. Blueboy96 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The site's author has tried to blank the discussion, and also tried to remove the AFD tag from the article. Good faith can no longer be assumed. Blueboy96 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The ideas in this article are true and Joe Nelson is actually making a "temple" in Stafford, VA. Just because its not on google, it doesnt mean the article is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.6.1.56 (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Then please provide some reliable, independent sources stating as much. Right now we have no way of knowing any of this is true beyond your say-so. Only slightly less importantly, we have no way of knowing whether the ideas in this article are notable; again, we need reliable independent sources to determine that. Find some, and the article may be kept. Powers ^T 23:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dirtball

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

I at first didn't know what to make of this article, but it appears to be a hoax as the "real name" of the artist links to a US President. No assertion of notability and no citations from independent sources. will381796 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The link to Jimmy Carter was vandalism, FYI. It isn't a hoax, but WP:MUSIC is legitimately in question. --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability; the artist's record label (Suburban Noize Records) is an indie label whose notability is itself in question (per tags on its article), and there's no discussion of charted hits or influence on other artists. Powers ^T 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable.... -RiverHockey (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Jimmy Carter is a dirtball; let Wikipedia tell this to the whole world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.196.121.13 (talk)

Note The above comment left by IP 206.196.121.13 is in reference to the vandalism that (s)he did to The Dirtball twice. Thus I believe that their keep vote is invalid. will381796 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Koopa Clown Car

The Koopa Clown Car (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Copy and pasted from Mariowiki and fails WP:NOTE. This is pretty much a listing of the appearance of the Koopa Clown Car, for everything else is discussed in Bowser's article. FangzofBlood 18:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn trivia. JJL (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant information to Bowser (Nintendo). Article already exists at the Super Mario Wiki, so no transwiki necessary. Powers ^T 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The funny thing is that the information IS stated. FangzofBlood 22:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:FICT. Totally lacks notability, no real-world context and no significant coverage. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. FangzofBlood 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Jack Merridew 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notability established. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hosinshu

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

Second nomination; page was previously deleted. Non-notable newly created art (only 7 Ghits when excluding "Wikipedia"); wholly unsourced. Previous discussion here [13] (sorry, unsure of the format for a second nomination). JJL (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. JJL (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Recently created art, no references, no assertion of notability. Bradford44 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Housekeeping. I've restored the original deletion discussion and created this new page per convention. Powers ^T 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Please see the original discussion history for the contributors to the above text. Powers ^T 19:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note2: For future reference, WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion explains how to list an article if it's be nominated before; look at the bottom of the Step I section. Powers ^T 19:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, noted! JJL (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a repost if it is, otherwise as a non notable martial art made up one day. Nuttah (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per advert and user request. 1 != 2 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tomb Raider Trio

Tomb Raider Trio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The notability of the websites is not declared and the article does not follow the writing styles of English Wikipedia. huji—TALK 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G11 as blatant advertising, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC) author has blanked page (diff), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam; tags removed by originator, I've put them back. JohnCD (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• And he did it again, so I put them back again. He's been warned twice now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exploits Valley Mall

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

Non-notable shopping mall in Canada. A Google search turned up nothing of note. Claims to be the only mall in the region, but is unverified (it's been my experience that every other town in Canada seems to have an enclosed mall). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here is a page with information on the shopping center. Newfoundland and Labrador is much more loosely populated than other regions of Canada and the only other shopping malls around the area is one in Gander, at least 100km away. It's owned by Econo-Malls. I don't think the article should be deleted. There's more information here.~NeonFire372~ (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• None of those pages is a reliable third-party source, however. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Advertiser, Grand Falls-Windsor's local newspaper has definitely mentioned the mall countless times in print form. I don't see how a building such a shopping mall would need to be covered in the news that much anyway considering the extremely low crime rate in Central Newfoundland. The mall is notable however because it provides somewhere to shop for residents at least 100km away, and even almost 200km away as you head out on the coast where there are outport communities with nothing but a grocery store. The mall is mentioned here - that proves it's existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~NeonFire372~ (talk • contribs) 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• If the Drawing Area (of 100km/200km away) can find a verifyable source stating that fact, then that would make the mall notable as that Draw Area would put it on par with Super Regionals. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as existence is not sufficient for an encyclopedic article. Not even if you're the only mall within 100km. Encyclopedias are tertiary-sources that require independent secondary sources to establish notability. Epthorn (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, the wording by Epthorn (talk · contribs), is exactly how I would put it. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In its present state, the article might be logical candidate for a merge. However, the fact that the character has appeared in several contexts makes this tricky, and there is no consensus for any specific merge.--Kubigula (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madam Mim

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

This character is a non-notable character from the Disney movie Sword in the Stone, and has no notability apart from the movie. It has no references from reliable sources, and as such is an in-universe plot repetition take from the plot sections of the movie and TV show. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no notability, and unreferenced anyway. mattbuck (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - a major Disney character, at least in Europe; in any case, is in no way limited only to the movie. --Kizor (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  Could you give examples of how she's not limited to the movie? Or do you mean, she's also in the original book? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  Sure. She's a recurring character in the Disney comics, retooled into a contemporary setting as a sort of anti-hero; reclusive and quite morbid, but not an actual antagonist. I gather said comics are not very popular in the US? Well, they're huge in Europe - in my native Finland, well over 95% of children aged 7-14 read them. (Yes, I'm serious. In fact that's a deliberate underestimation as I can't recall the exact figure.) It would be a fair estimate that at least 90% of the population would recognize the character. This is a couple orders of magnitude removed from being a bit player in one Disney movie. --Kizor (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I never knew that. I hope that this great notability in Europe will make it easy to demonstrate notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The C.O.A Inducks features a chronological listing of her appearances. Currently 933 stories and/or covers included. Dimadick (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As do I... --Kizor (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A very notable and enduring comic book character. Dimadick (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• (Stubbify&Keep or) merge, but don't delete I needed an image to know who the article is talking about, but I do recognize her from several stories. Is there are list for minor Disney characters? The first one or two paragraphs may be unsourced and may seem ORish, but they are real-world information that should be kept somewhere. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is, now would be a great time to show it, as I am skeptical that there is any. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have outgrown my Disney phase some time ago, so I don't remember any details about her character. My google search brought up some reviews for the film,[14] information about what a good job the voice actress did etc.,[15] and confirmation that Madam Mim was a main character in The Sword of the Stone and made many minor appearances in other Disney-related things. [16][17] I couldn't find a wikilist for minor Disney characters, so I think The Sword in the Stone (film) would be a good smerge target. I still believe that some sentences of the first two and the last paragraph deserve a mention somewhere. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge this back to The Sword in the Stone. There's enough info here that could justify a mention in the article if sourced, notably the character being written out of later versions of the work and the animation facets. Also, it keeps the title as a redirect for a useful search term. redirects are free! Hiding T 10:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Kizor. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Kizor and Sgeureka. --SimpleParadox 18:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The opening sentence, “This character is a non-notable character from the Disney movie Sword in the Stone, and has no notability apart from the movie,” is ignorant and incorrect, which shows the complexity of the issue and the need for the article. The character is from the original version of the book, and was deleted in the later version, which is more widely read. She then received greater notoriety from a notable movie, and has subsequently achieved even greater notability in other forms. It’s also unclear which article she would be merged into; my main interest is in the book, but it sounds like some of the proposers are only interested in (or at least aware of) the movie. This shows, I feel, a broader problem with this process of boiler-plate removal proposals by those with an insufficient grasp of the subject matter.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not an exam for the people who nominated the article, it is an opportunity to demonstrate the articles notability, and if there is no notability to demonstrate, no amount of keep votes or insulting messages will change that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as a major character, with possibility to find reliable sources. Remember that she has different names in different languages: it looks to me like e.g. this book in Italian (check for Maga Magò)[18] has comments about the character (if my Italian is any good, it is about the depiction of the Middle Ages in Disney productions), which could be included in the article as a secondary source establishing some notability (I will not include this though, since my Italian is not good enough to be certain of the translation). Fram (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. (I know it's usually poor form for a user with a clear bias in the matter to close an AfD, but I don't think anybody will dispute it in this case.) - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somari

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

I understand what the game is. It's a Genesis game working on Nintendo, so it's basically the original Sonic the Hedgehog on NES, but the hacker replaced Sonic with Mario Just because a hack is "impressive" does not make it notable and does not warrant an article. I've gotten several more impressive hacks and pirates deleted using AFD in the past, and just because a hack or pirate is "good" does not bear any meaning on if it deserves an article or not. I don't care how many years of work went through to make it, I don't care what kind of special software was used to put it all together, all I care about if it is notable or not and fits into Wikipedia guidelines. If the hack has any effect on an official video game company or their official games, been commented on by Nintendo or Sega or any other notable video game companies, been talked about on a notable magazine, website (just not a brief mention page like with Mobygames, since websites like that have places where anyone can contribute information to) etc.. As an example, look at this: [19]and you'll see why I didn't remove that ROM hack mention.

Lets say I wanted to transfer a Genesis game to NES the same way Somari did, and I changed the characters to whatever I wanted and retitled the game and gave it to the video game pirating people, would that mean that my game deserves an article?

This page has resulted in deletion before. [20] Newspaper98 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical note; This is actually #4, the first VfD apparently took place on 25 June 2004.[21] SkierRMH (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. Yes, and we undeleted it because these grounds are entirely spurious, which I have already explained to you on your talk page. This debate will soon be closed because the deletion on these grounds has been overturned before (which is what the third AfD was -- overturning the second deletion) and you have not introduced anything new at all this time around. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Wikipedian suggested that we should have the debate because the article still lacks sources. Fine. In any case, my vote is still "strong keep", in part because the nominator doesn't seem to display any understanding of what the game in question actually is. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper98, what would you consider a notable ROM hack? - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It should be possible to find sources. One is [22], where it was named game of the week by a sub-site of gamespy. I found that through a couple of seconds of google searching. — PyTom (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete The article is almost entirely primary sourced description or OR. No sources listed or found by me contain any actual information about the title (who made it, how, why, and so forth) just bemused speculation of their own, with no apparent fact checking to support it. Its only claim to notability would be if the emulator-era interest in the ROM was itself strong enough to be notable, but that would require a very different article, which also doesn't seem to be supported by reliable sources. gnfnrf (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Nominator's edit history suggests an extreme bias towards hacks and fan translations in general; not a legitmate cause for deletion.--Claude (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My edit history has nothing to do with what consensus should be reached. My reason is straight forward and you haven't even said why you don't believe it's legitimate. And no, I'm not bias if I'm letting this stay in: [23], and the fact that I'm willing to negotiate. Newspaper98 (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Scrooge McDuck --Zsinj^Talk 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Money Bin

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

I love Ducktales, but there is no justification for an article on the Money Bin if there is no notability established through reliable sourcing, and as such its just plot repetition of plot points from the Ducktales episode articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Scrooge McDuck - no true notability, and it talks about scrooge storing his money in the 6th dimension... The parts of this article which are actually coherent can be merged into Scrooge. mattbuck (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Well, there is this LEGO model of the money bin .... but merge and redirect (a useful portion) as above. This is a plausible search term and seems to be frequently mentioned in articles on McDuck. --Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect. There are no citations in this article, merging this original research would sacrifice the work done to cleanup the Scrooge page. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh. Keep or Merge with some trimming to Scrooge McDuck and possibly to Duckburg. Unlike Calisota, this is far less debatable: It's definitely a major landmark in Duckburg and a very central plot device in many many many comics, several from Barks alone and dozens and dozens if you count all artists of same caliber. And probably easier to find external references for, too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, there is some useful info in the article. The Money Bin was created by Carl Barks, that's sourcable to Carl Barks: Conversations by Carl Barks, Donald Ault, 2003 Univ. Press of Mississippi ISBN 1578065011. Beyond that the rest of the opening paragraph is sourcable to primary source and of use to inform readers. The rest of it I would think is not within our scope. Hiding T 11:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple references are in Ault books and the Barks Library amoong other places. 203.220.107.102 (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Please Keep. There's some good information here. With better sourcing, this can be a decent article. --Ultra Megatron (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Miller (Kickboxer)

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

No references. Does not meet WP:N or WP:Bio as there is no notability established through reliable sourcing, and might have a WP:COI problem. Could be a hoax. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, unless sourcing is provided. Google brings up too many hits with "Joe Miller" +kickboxing to be sure that we're talking about the same person.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Google search on 'memorable' Hong Kong fight brings up zilch.Wwwhatsup (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dirtiest Sketch Contest

Dirtiest Sketch Contest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page has been orphaned for 18 months, has no true notability, and is missing vast amounts of information. Last useful edit was over 12 months ago. mattbuck (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable; obviously written by an insider, but nobody else is likely to care. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If anybody could prove to me that this article could even come close to being improved, I might consider keeping it. It has the fatal flaw of having everything wrong with it 1) Poorly Written 2) Un-Referenced 3) Mostly empty 4) Non-notable 5) Looks like it was written by an insider. I could look up who wrote this and if it's their only contribution then I'll have a good idea. TostitosAreGross (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oneupweb

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

This was proded for lack of notability. There are some real claims to notability here. I thought it prudent to bring here for further dicussion. I am officially neutral on this one. Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'm not seeing the claims of notability. Could you enlighten us as to what you're seeing? Thanks! --Fabrictramp (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply The article has reference to reliable sources (wired magazine) as well as a list of Awards, which may or may not in themselves be notable. These may not be enough for notability, but they at least are enough to ask for more comment. I may vote either way myself, but I need to see what others think before deciding. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the enlightenment!--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless claims of WP:Notability can be improved. Is not listed in the 2007 winners on the Addy Award website[24], links on Michigan 50 website are not working, Wired magazine article is a passing mention. Can't find evidence showing that the ClickZ award is notable -- everything I'm seeing is a press release.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the issues mentioned above. The actual Addy page is http://www.aafd6.org/addys/D6Addy_2007.asp. I could send people here, but I thought it would be more useful to send them to the top level.

For the Michigan 50, it is a cookie issue. I could not get the page to work when I went back to it. The site has instructions for fixing this.

• 1. Check the cookie settings in your browser
• 2. Look for a cookie called "companiestowatch.org"
• 3. Delete the cookie
• 4. Click the web link again

Monitorfuse (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)monitorfuse

So for the Addy Award, this was a local chapter's award, rather than a national award?--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct. The award is for District 6. Should I put that in the copy?

Monitorfuse (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)monitorfuse

Thanks to all of you that took the time to respond. I understand the concerns that you have outlined, and hope that I have addressed them. If there is anything else that I can do, please let me know.

Monitorfuse (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)monitorfuse

Sorry for being a pest, but I was hoping to hear from someone on anything I could do for this entry. Is the discussion closed?

Monitorfuse (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)monitorfuse

The discussion will remain open for approximately 1 week, or until an administrator has determined that enough users have commented to reach a consensus on how to handle it. Several editors have noted shortcomings in their requests to delete the article. Perhaps you could fix those problems, or contact those editors directly for more explanation of their concerns? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron32. I tried to address their concerns and added additional resources. I will contact them directly.

Monitorfuse (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Monitorfuse

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tag for cleanup, verify. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald Gustafson

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

The subject of this article, Gerald Gustafson, won the Air Force Cross. However, a Google search of "Gerald Gustafson" and "Air Force Cross"[25] does not return any third-party sources (only Wikipedia mirrors), which means this page is not verifiable. The lack of websites would also seem to be an indicator of a lack of notability. The author of the page claims to be Gustafson's grandson, which is where the information comes from. Therefore, I feel it should be deleted.

This article was previously speedily deleted per WP:A7, but is currently undergoing a deletion review. Another user has jumped ahead of the DRV result, and has recreated the article, so I've decided to just nominate it for deletion to hopefully settle this debate. Tom (talk - email) 17:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The debate at the DRV was running at 8 editors wanting to overturn your deletion, one editor wanting to endorse it (you) and one other who would keep it if it was given more sources. The article now has two independent sources. By the way, it is usually thought polite to inform an editor when you seek to delete an article he started. Nick mallory (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Air force cross winners are almost certain to be notable, and the lack of coverage on the internet is not a good indication of lack of notability or verifiability given that he won the award in 1967 - it's to be expected that someone like this will be better coverd in offline sources. Having said that, I'd be happier if someone could find a reference or two to a reliable source. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • An honorable award, yes, but is it automatically notable? Should every person who has won the Air Force Cross have an article? Medals are subjective awards, and if no third parties have discussed him on the internet yet, then that is certainly a very strong indicator of whether someone has secured a place in the history books. --Tom (talk - email) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • This is what the wikipedia policy says. "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards....The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." Are you claiming the second highest award for gallantry in the USAF isn't a significant award? Perhaps you are, in the DRV you wrote "There isn't any mention of why he is notable, just that he won the Air Force Cross. Why is this important?" Nick mallory (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd love it if every person who has won an Air Force Cross had an article - wouldn't it be great to have comprehensive coverage of a group of people with such fascinating stories to tell? Whether it's practical given notability and verifiability guidelines I don't know, but I would think so - and certainly hope so. There'll have been plenty of coverage at the time - and notability is not temporary. Nor is it determined by what's already been written on the internet. There are still big holes in the internet's coverage of many areas, one of which is minor historical figures. With the exception of contemporary journalism, the vast majority of serious, high quality, professional writing is still either offline, or else hidden behind paywalls and thus invisible to Google, so unless we want an encyclopedia devoted mainly to Star Wars, World of Warcraft and news stories from the last ten years, we shouldn't be relying on Google as our main arbiter of notability. And Wikipedia is at it's best when it covers subjects which aren't well covered elsewhere on the internet; if I want to know about The Simpsons, Wikipedia is entirely redundant to this site, but if I want to know about the Brown Dog affair, it may well be the best free source of information available. In any event, it's not true to say that there's no third party information about him at all on the internet, here is confirmation of the citation of his award, so that part of the article at least is verifiable. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I do not argue the fact that the internet (including Wikipedia and Google) has a bias towards recent events. However, the argument that we "could" find a wealth of published information about someone isn't a reason to keep an article that otherwise seems obscure. --Tom (talk - email) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. MOH recipients have been deleted on the same basis. Wikipedia is not a directory of medal winners. --Dhartung | Talk 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. Seriously? Medal of Honor winners have been deleted? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is an article on an individual not a directory. There is no policy which says 'Wikipedia is not a directory of medal winners' either and it's perhaps not sporting to imply that there is with a blue link set up to misrepresent its contents (WP:NOT#DIR|Wikipedia is not a directory of medal winners). The directory policy Dhartung links to doesn't mention medal winners at all, it says there shouldn't be "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", "Genealogical entries or phonebook entries", a "Sales catalog" or a repository for "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" - none of those things have any relevance to this article or indeed any article about the winner of a major millitary medal. Nick mallory (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He won the Air Force Cross, the second highest award for gallantry in the U.S. Air Force. I find it literally incredible that anyone should think winners of this award are not notable. Wikipedia guidelines on notability clearly state that people who've been given major awards are notable. Tom's argument that medal awards of this kind are 'subjective' is ludicrous, is he suggesting that some winners of the Victoria Cross or George Cross didn't deserve them either? The idea that because something which happened 40 years ago doesn't have many google hits it should be disregarded is also facile as Iain points out. Failing to find someone on google and using that as proof that he's not mentioned in any history books makes no sense either. The citation is given in full in the article in any case. He complains both when someone possibly related to Gustafson writes an article, and also when someone not in anyway related to him (e.g. me) "jumps in' and writes one too. I find this nomination bizarre in both its reasoning and intent. What is 'obscure' about someone who won a major medal in the Vietnam War? Nick mallory (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Medals are subjective, since an act of heroism to one person may be seen as exactly the opposite to another, depending on their frame of reference. To suggest otherwise is incorrect (however, I never said he didn't deserve the medal, so please do not put words in my mouth). A person is defined by their actions, not a piece of metal with ribbon. So, do his actions of "not leaving a man behind" (if I interpreted things correctly) warrant his own article, or is it because he has a medal? Additionally, the original author has explicitly stated that he is his grandson, which I have no reason to doubt. If anything, this gives more cause to delete the article since there is a bias.
    Also, please try to keep your comments together and limit dissecting each point made above, as it disrupts continuity. --Tom (talk - email) 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Medals are subjective? That's an absurd statement. They're awarded by a state in recognition of heroism or other service and this is a very high ranking medal. It's not up to you, or anyone else, to second guess if the act or acts which merited them seem worthy to you. The very fact that he received a medal of this rank automatically makes the recipient notable by Wikipedia standards as has been pointed out to you. If you check the history of this article you'll see that I started it this time around, rather than the man's grandson, but this is a red herring too, there's no bias involved in making simple statements of fact. Yes a person is defined by their actions, but it's those actions which, in this case, won the medal. I have to say I find this a ridiculous discussion. Nick mallory (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Like you did here? I'll discuss this article how I choose, thanks. It would help you answered the substantive points made against this deletion request, rather than criticise the form in which they appear. Your nomination says the article should be deleted because it isn't sourced. It now is sourced, from two independent sources. In addition you admit that the article in its current incarnation wasn't started by anyone related to Gustafson, so as your grounds for deletion have been shown to be false. Instead of admitting that your proposal is groundless you are now attempting to argue that somehow medal winners have to pass some nebulous test which only you are proposing, although you offer no clue to what the parameters of that test might be. Whatever this ad hoc test might be you admit that he passes it "I never said he didn't deserve the medal" so why are you still arguing about this man's inclusion? Nick mallory (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Before I answer, please do not split up other people's comments (as you did to mine above, which I am recombining) as a matter of courtesy. In addition, the reason I asked you to keep your comments together is that it is difficult for me to reply to your claims if they are scattered. I am also going to ask you politely to calm down and refrain from calling my arguments absurd. I merely disagree with you, and I have not attacked your ideas in any way. Please offer the same level of respect to me that I am affording to you, and understand that we all have different points of view.
        Now that that is out of the way, let me answer your questions. Medals are subjective because someone has to decide whether or not an act was heroic or meets the qualifications for the medal. The Air Force Cross is not a marksmanship medal, for example, where there is a specific number of targets that have to be hit for the citation to be made. Instead, it is a qualitative assessment made by a commanding officer (or other executive/committee, depending on the medal). Others may not construe the act as heroic, or may argue that the medal was awarded more for political reasons rather than practical (for example). I am not saying that is the case here necessarily, rather I am simply pointing out the fact that a medal does not automatically mean someone should have an article. Their accomplishments should be defined by their achievements, not by their medal, which I have stated above.
        Also, understand that this AFD is not because I have a personal vendetta against this man (or you, or his grandson, or anyone else), but because I question whether or not he should be part of this particular encyclopedia. Also, do not confuse my respect for his award (which I do respect) with whether or not I feel he should have an article or not. A lot of people have performed heroic acts which will never be on Wikipedia. Why? Because at some point, whether we like it or not, a line has to be drawn.
        However, even though I am not convinced there should be an article, I will still be happy if the opening of this AFD resulted in a workable, well-cited article, as well as some healthy discussion concerning who should have an article or not. Let us keep that in mind. --Tom (talk - email) 03:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Also, I apologize for not informing you directly of the AFD. I was under the impression that you were creating the article because you saw it on the DRV (where I gave notice). Bad timing, but assume good faith in that it was an unintended slight. --Tom (talk - email) 04:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• I am the one who submitted the article. Here is my source. Hope this helps...
  http://www.homeofheros.com/valor/0_AFC/afcross_detail_chron.html
  http://www.vietnamunitmemorialdisplay.org/new_page_9.htm
  I believe these are sites for people to check for phonies. Hope these helps. Sdsbassist (talk)Sdsbassist
• Keep. The Air Force Cross is probably notable enough, and www.homeofheros.com is cited in a lot of the MOH articles I've edited. I'm having trouble following Tom's reasoning. How are medals subjective? He was either awarded the cross or he wasn't. Whether someone actually deserved a medal is an entirely different issue, and certainly beyond the scope of an Afd. I also see no COI issues. The article just presents the facts. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Addendum. There's a Category:Recipients of US Air Force Cross, so evidently the award confers notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Categories are not indicators of notability, but rather descriptive taxonomies. Because Category:United States Army soldiers exists doesn't mean every soldier should have an article, nor should all of the Category:American physicians, for example. --Tom (talk - email) 04:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the MOH is 100% notable and the cross is just one step down from it, so I'm inclined to say that it is as well. Anything less prestigious would cross the line IMO, but this is a marginal keep to me, especially now that it is sourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think it is well established that a lack of google hits does not imply a lack of notability, nor does it imply a lack of verifiability. DuncanHill (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As I understand it Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history recommends that only the highest award in a country's system of decorations confers "automatic" notability (i.e. MoH, VC/GC etc). I will add this AFD to the project talk page to get some more input. David Underdown (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikiprojects don't set policy though. Wikipedia's notability rules for individuals say that people who've won "significant recognized awards or honors" are generally held to be automatically notable. I fail to see how the Air Force Cross, or similar, isn't such an award. Nick mallory (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No but what they are saying is that only the top-level awards count as being sufficiently highly recognized for the purpose of that part of the notability guideline (NB in itself WP:NOTABILITY is only a guideline, not a policy). David Underdown (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article makes no assertion of notability beyond the award, which does not appear to bear inherent notability.ALR (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are less than 200 total recipients of this award. Considering how many airmen served in the Vietnam War (including close to 30,000 combat pilots) that only 179 (180, one upgraded) received this award would appear notable enough. —PētersV (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per ALR. I worry how many more 'notable persons' we would have if we included the second highest awards for various things in each branch of each country. Especially as then you'd have to work out what was the second highest at the time of the award and such. A respectable award, and the award itself is notable, but I don't think in this case the person is. Narson (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Even more notable is that he is one of the few living winners. This can be important for Veterans Group's and Educational Organizations that need to verify Gustafson's record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdsbassist (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If they need to verify it, they should likely contact the US DoD rather than use a website anyone can edit. Wikipedia is a quick stop for information, not a tool anyone should use to do their job. Narson (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - by the ordinary meaning of the word "notable" this man's achievements are surely notable. LeContexte (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but Expand heavily. If this is kept, I hope it is, it should be given an infobox, and extremely expanded. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 03:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, the inference being that it's not up to standard at the moment?
    There has now been nearly a week to correct the issues with notability being cited, and no effort has been made to do that.
    ALR (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, delete for a lack of the sources needed to ever expand the article past this sub-stub listing. Winning a prestigious medal is certainly a claim of notability but that alone is not sufficient to support an encyclopedia article. I will reconsider if anything can be found that would reliably expand the page past the mere copying of his citation. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmed Mahmoud EL Kholy

Ahmed Mahmoud EL Kholy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by writer of the article. Non notable poet whose only references are to vanity publisher International Library of Poetry/poetry.com. Most Google hits describe this outfit as a “scam” and a “rip-off” at worst and a vanity publisher at best. (See Wikipedia’s entry on poetry.com.) Also suspect conflict of interest; based on user name, Mr. Al Kholy has written this page himself. Dawn bard (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

delete- per nom.--Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 17:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A grand total of 5 Google hits. An obvious vanispamcruftisement. Blueboy96 17:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Question The writer of the article keeps deleting the the AfD notice from the page. Can the article be protected, or is that not an appropriate reason for protection? Thanks --Dawn bard (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, since it's only the author removing it. If he keeps it up, though, he'll be blocked. Blueboy96 18:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And he did it again. From an anon IP, but still--quack, quack. It seems to me that good faith can no longer be assumed. Blueboy96 14:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, notability via significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is not established. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catherine Tran

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

Contested PROD – PROD notice was removed without explanation by anonymous user. Previous “refimprove” and “notability” tags were removed quickly without explanation, too – possible COI / self-promotion? Not notable; notability barely even asserted in article. The sources only mention Ms. Tran in passing, and none of them confirm any of her personal or academic information, and the companies that she works for/has worked for don’t seem to meet WP:CORP. Dawn bard (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED. The anon that did most of the work on this article also made generous contributions to Tran Bich San (Catherine's father) and Rosie Tran, her sister, both of whom do pass the test of notability. But Catherine clearly does not. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Question? There is no explanation why this person is considerable not notable?

• There is an explanation above, but the onus is actually on the author and editors of the article to establish notability, which hasn't been done here. There are no independent secondary sources - the references are just a series of articles based on press releases, and even still, Ms. Tran is only mentioned in passing. Please have a look at WP:BIO and WP:CORP if you have any more questions about what counts as "notable" on Wikipedia, or feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page. Thanks. --Dawn bard (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This person is a very notable and important person in the Los Angeles fashion scene. Just because user Blanchardb is not familiar with the L.A. fashion scene, doesn't mean that Ms. Tran is not notable. -timed 15:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC) --76.213.247.147 (talk)
• KeepAdditional comment. The articles verify notability and significance for the companies Ms. Tran has worked for and their importance in the fashion industry. They don't mention her just "in passing". In fact, serveral of the articles reference her as a company CEO and clothing designer. --76.213.247.147 (talk)
  • Then how come the article asserts none of this? --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 03:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• KeepAdditional comment. Further research is currently being done to expand the article. --76.213.247.147 (talk)
• KeepAdditional comment. The "refimprove" and "notability" tags were removed after the article had several references added. --76.213.247.147 (talk)
• Delete as non notable and failing WP:BIO. We need coverage in reliable sources, the article has press releases which mainly list Tran as a contact. Nuttah (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect into Due South, but due to the contradictory information this may prove to be challenging. Redirected for now, and will userify the previous contents on request to help with the merge. — Coren ^(talk) 07:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diefenbaker (wolf)

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

This article has no references to establish its notability per WP:FICTION and also lacks sources per WP:RS. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the television series Due South and is duplicative of them. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - into what I don't know, but the article is a stub and lacking in sources. Could maybe be redone when there is sufficient information to warrant a new article. mattbuck (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Due South has enough info about who played Diefenbaker, and really, how much more is there to say? (However, the two articles disagree, so it would be nice to have that checked.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Due South 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect as above - doesn't warrant a standalone article. PKT (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect/Delete doesn't seem to establish out-of-universe notability. Cheers, CP 00:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• I have added to this page to try and address some of the problems mentioned. Please reconsider your opinions. GalaxyHound (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

* I second the objection to removal; he’s a major character in a major series, with points of interest (and complexity, e.g., the composition of his ancestry) separate from the series as a whole. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) “is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.”

In particular, “it is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the television series Due South and is duplicative of them” sounds to me like boiler-plate and would need to be sourced before consensus is achieved. My contributions, which I did source, clearly belonged in this article rather than the series article.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw - Notability, in at least a limited form, has been established. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Due South - Although secondary sources are provided, most are self-published and do not meet WP:RS (except for one book source for which no ISBN is provided). Per WP:FICT et al., there is no need for a separate article on an individual character unless said character has been the subject of extensive discussion in secondary sources and/or has had a major impact on popular culture. Walton^One 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I’ve added the ISBN, though it hardly seems crucial for a book from a major university press.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angry black man syndrome

Angry black man syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnotable duplicate of Black rage (law), we do not need 2 articles on this one marginally notable topic. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• delete- per SqueakBox. futurebird (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete- Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom--Tom 17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Black rage (law). I can see it being used as a search term. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I boldly did this yesterday and was reverted, hence the afd. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom; OR and POV problems as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per SqueakBox. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete per all above--Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 06:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Squeakbox. Lawrence Cohen 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A1/A3 per nom. Article does not provide context for expansion and what little valid content (which is sourced) should be added to Racism in the United States or as SqueakBox suggested. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is clear that the article should be given more time to have reliable secondary sources added. Will have to be renominated if sources are not added within a reasonable time period. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeomanry (Greyhawk)

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

Fictional location from a RPG game. Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, and WP:FICT on account of having no reliable secondary sources. Tagged as non-notable, but no improvement forthcoming. Gavin Collins (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Being a fictional location from an RPG is not grounds for deletion. Reliable secondary sources can and should be added. Tagging as non-notable might well be appropriate, but there is no deadline for improvement of articles, and AfD isn't supposed to be used as a tool to force article improvement. Rray (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Rray.--Robbstrd (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Rray. BOZ (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Rray. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Rray. Gavin, I don't think these AFDs are being made in good faith. You say that you added a notability tag to this article but that no improvements are forthcoming. But you've only given editors a couple of months from the original posting of the template. Not everyone spends as much time on Wikipedia as you do, so you're not giving interested parties enough time to fix entries before you delete them. Further, you are tagging and deleting so many articles so often that it's almost impossible to keep up with you. Why not take a little time off of this crusade and give people some time to make improvements? The pace of your templating and requests for deletion is exaspirating, and it's really taking a lot of the fun and love people have dedicated to Wikipedia out of it. If your plan is to wear down RPG page editors from participating in Wikipedia, congratulations. It's working. I don't deny that several of these pages should be merged or deleted, but you're posting on all of them, often about subjects you know nothing about, and expecting everyone to keep up with your pace. That's unfair, and it's really disappointing. I know that you think these efforts are improving Wikipedia, but in fact you're really limiting the utility and fun of Wikipedia for thousands of readers, all by youself. I really wish you would just give this crusade a rest for a few months so people can address your templates, fix the articles that need fixing, or clean them up themselves. You are upsetting a lot of people and not giving those who care to improve these articles anything close to a fair chance to do so. I wish you'd give it a rest. Iquander (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to change my vote to Keep per Iquander. ;) BOZ (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not clear why it's not notable. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete; the rationale for nomination was not satisfactorily addressed. east.718 at 22:35, December 19, 2007

[edit] List of locations in the Star Fox series

List of locations in the Star Fox series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a list of locations that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is unnecessary to cover them in detail, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Unless notability can be established by multiple sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but on a couple conditions Strong keep, now that the article's been expanded upon - It's notable as being about scenes of fictional planets. HOWEVER, if that is not a viable option, merge the levels of each respective game into those game articles (such as StarFox 64's levels would then go to #Levels or #Locations). If given the chance to be expanded upon (as it's relatively brief), it could have a better purpose. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please see WP:N#Notability requires objective evidence. It will only be notable if it is brought up to our standards. The standards for fiction can be found in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). If you do not understand these at all, feel free to inquire on my talk page (though, please read them fully first). TTN (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing. I have read your page over and over. You avoid having to answer any questions asked to you regarding why it is deleted, or what you consider notable. What are your standards for notability? (wading through several large articles to find a few small points isn't a pasttime for me...) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=TTN . See a similar discussion to this in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in Primeval and User_talk:TTN#Deletion of Primeval episodes matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - A large part of a notable series with nontrivial content. -- Masterzora (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly transwiki if someone wants it. No secondary information present to establish notability per WP:FICT. Furthermore major violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. It's hard to think of real-world information about locations in video games like this, so wikipedia shouldn't have an article about it. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The question here is whether these locations are important to the encyclopaedic discussion of the topic, or whether they would be better suited to a game guide. These games are shooters, and therefore I do not think locations are important. Perhaps the only game genre that would warrant a list of locations is the adventure game - a list of islands in Riven, for example. In those games, the locations are the game, in the same way as character lists are important for story-focused games like RPGs. In a shooter without a story, I see little need for a list like this, therefore warrants deletion per WP:GAMECRUFT. User:Krator (t c) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• De-transwiki-lete no apparent real-world context, criticism, or analysis, and unlikely that there ever could be such information without WP:OR, due to the rather limited scope of the subject matter <eleland/talkedits> 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment/question If i (or another wikipedia contributor) were to considerably expand on the details of each level/location/planet, would that satisfy the notability requirements of the page? As an alternate, would that then make it more suited to being on each respective game's page as a section/sub section? allow me to also state that i DO understand it needs to be brought out of an in-universe tone (wikified and made more encyclopedic), and i certainly know and understand that wikipedia is not a game guide. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• As I explained here and on your talk page, you need real world information to establish notability. They are game guide material (any way that you word them), so they would be removed from any articles. TTN (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• You mean like how the developers based the aerial dogfights in the game after the ones in Independence Day? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but that pertains to the series, not these. If you have a reliable source for it, do add it to the series page. TTN (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Updated vote to speedy keep reason: user is nominating massive amounts of video game articles in bad faith, using sock puppets, bots, harassing others on his talk page when they confront him on this... do i really need to go on? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, what did you say about another user? Do you have any proof of the accusations you are making, or are you just talking out of pure ignorance? I strongly caution you from accusing people of things that you cannot prove. Besides, there is no evidence of bad faith nomination. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability established in the primary article. Longstanding consensus holds that lists like this should be split out if they make the main article too long. Wikipedia is not paper. We have room for a logical arrangement of subject material rather than cramming it all into one page. Nomination seems a clear WP:POINT violation... nom is on the verge of being admonished by ArbCom about excessive/questionable 'merge' actions, so now is putting everything on AfD instead. --CBD 06:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agreed with CBDunkerson, hopefully the arbcom will note these POINT violations. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The locations themselves need to be focus of non-trivial coverage in order to establish notability, things like development info or reliable secondary parties discussing them. Someone another (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT#GUIDE/WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above: gamecruft. Btw, User:RingtailedFox can you please reduce the visual pollution of your signature? Eusebeus (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  The signature won't be changed, and that's not relevant to the discussion anyway. Denied. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  I've cleaned-up your sigs on this page. --Jack Merridew 09:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Move to Wikia. SharkD (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per RingtailedFox, CBD. --Maniwar (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per CBD. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this "list" is actually a transcription of a game guide and fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Star Fox franchise. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and improve, consensus is that he is notable enough and that sources can/will be found. Davewild (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Ehrlich

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

Unrefferenced, no claim of notability, virtually no content, complete orphan. Mdbrownmsw (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article has had plenty of time to acquire some reliable sources and citations thereof. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. We need to be careful with subjects from the pre-internet era and while Ehrlich doesn't seem to have ever been translated into English, his works are cited particularly in the area of the history of philosophy. I'm looking for usable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is a legacy article of the problematic wikipedian User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg (now banned), who in his obsession with names created thousands of stubby pages of people and locations that happened to have a name he liked. Talking from experience, these things were never hoaxes and had a minimum of notability, but they were often so low in quality that a deletion couldn't be much worse. My prod as part of WP:SU was overturned, but I have no attachment to this page in one way or another. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 'the authors of multiple academic books are notable, regardless of who created them, and i don't see why whether or not they are in English has much to do with it. In most of the period when this man was writing, English was not the principal language in his subject. His 1965 book is found in 62 worldCat libraries (predominantly english speaking countries--including 45 US & Canadian libraries). For a 1965 German textbook in philosophy, this implies considerable academic recognition. DGG (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment For a non-English work to be a reliable source for the English wikipedia, we need reliable translations of those works. This leaves us back where we started: no reliable sources = no notability. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

No, not in the least. Translating a non controversial source for a non-controversial article is not OR; and if either is controversial, it can be checked. I know enough German to know what the books are about, and so do several other thousand people here. The editors in enWP can communicate in hundreds of different languages. We have never accepted this overly restrictive view in WP, and non-English sources are used throughout, and explicitly permitted. We cover the world, and we use the best sources available. The only meaning of it being the english WP is that the final articles here are in English. anyway, i don't see he is related to this article. if his notability is in publishing books in multiple libraries, how is this affected? 03:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Oh I agree - translation is not important. Shakespeare would be notable to you, if you were only French speaking and he had never been translated. If I spoke German then I would create a stub on the German wikipedia and cross link it with this article... Victuallers (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep Victuallers (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy which requires that sources should be in English to be considered verifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the article's main problem is that no sources are listed at all to even establish that he existed. (I am German and have never heard of him, but then again I am completely useless when it comes to philosophy.) – sgeureka ^t•c 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Strangely enough, he has no artoicle on the German Wikipedia. --Crusio (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment given the books ascribed to him, he must have existed. If deWP had deleted the4 article, that would be helpful information. if they merely never had it, its another matter. DGG (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  Reply As far as I can see the article never existed, so this may indeed not mean much, as deWP is much smaller than the English version. --Crusio (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ved Prakash Sharma

Ved Prakash Sharma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

All hits I found on this guy refer to a different person by this name. In all likelihood, the article in question is a hoax. Blueboy96 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I couldn't find anything on Google linking him with the publishing house he's supposed to own, and the sources I found seemed to be about a different person with the same name. I couldn't find anything at all on this popular and unusually prolific writer... one would expect someone with the career described in the article to have a lot more written about him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom and above as nonsense. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That criterion specifically excludes nonsense hoaxes ... and even then, this article isn't patent nonsense. Blueboy96 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom Victuallers (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, hoax. --Crusio (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 original reasearch concerns and without reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tower Defense Genre

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

Game strategy Coreycubed (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Does not refer to the strategy of a game/games but rather to the genre of games.Paiev (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC) See below. Paiev^Discuss! 19:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-encyclopedic article on game strategy; the genre of this article is first-person shooters (the tower defense concept makes no sense in any other genre). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree on a few points. First of all, a first-person shooter has the player take the role of the shooter to kill enemies, etc. In tower defense games, the player typically takes the role of God akin to the role of players in SimCity (with different gameplay elements, obviously; the player is attempting to defend something as opposed to build a city). They fall under the very broad category of casual games. As for it being on game strategy, I do not see any strategy included in the article, but rather an attempt to depict common characteristics of tower defense games. Paiev (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, pending that addition of reliable sources to establish notability. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - very young article. Nominated same day as creation. Not constructive to delete a developping article. Sfacets 22:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No references, original research. It's unlikely that these problems can be fixed. Quale (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. - Still a young article, I am trying to get most of my resources as I type. This is my first wikipedia page being made from scratch, I have edited some in the past. I think it would be better to stay not only because it is in a way, a genre of games, and that it is my fault it is looking the way it is, and outside help would be appreciated to help me fix it. Ledgo (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment so what are your sources you're working from? Or is this original research? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply:I am working off of "Bloons Tower Defense" and multiple TD games from Warcraft III Reign of Choas. (There are literally hundreds of them) I am also looking into try another TD game like Tabletop TD to research it more. I AM researching this myself, it is quite hard to find any writing about TD games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledgo (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
      • In that case, I'm going to have to say delete. Wikipedia does not allow for original research. See WP:NOR. All content must be verifiable. You need to find sources to back up your information. Paiev^Discuss! 19:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Ocean

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

There is not enough info at all to even create a decent stub.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 16:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. IMO this is a valid stub for a more-than-notable fictional character. The article does give enough context. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

One sentence is enough context for you?? Also, what kind of information would someone put into this, that is not already in the plot of all 3 movies.(4 if you count the old version).Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That sentence gives me all the context I need. If we make this article a redirect, to which one of the four movies will we redirect it? You may want to look at Agent Smith, Obi-wan Kenobi, Frodo, etc. for ideas. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Those 3 characters are different from this one. They have several books, and movies written with them in it, Ocean is just in 3 movies, 4 if you count the older version. Also, I am saying that we delete all of the links to, no links at all, no redirects, nothing just get rid of this. 1 sentence is not enough for any article on wikipedia.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article does not supply enough sources to prove the subject passes WP:N. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ocean's Eleven film page. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect would be ok with me.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• KeepOne hit movie? No, not at all. Two hit movies? Meh, I am still not convinced. Three hit movies? You gotta hand it to the fictional Ocean. He's made an impression on the moving going public at large. Keep. He's fictional, but sufficiently notable.Evensong (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is only one sentence..., it is pointless. As of right now, if you want to add in more info, WITH REFERENCES that are not just from the movie, be my guest.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, your argument for deletion is based on the length of the article. But there are many featured articles on Wikipedia that began with just one sentence. The subject is notable, no question about that. As for the article itself, there is certainly some room for improvement (lots of room, actually...), but by deleting the article right now we are denying people a chance to make those improvements. You want sources? How about the movies themselves? --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 02:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Suppose a hypothetical situation where we have an article that says, Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States. Just like that. And unsourced too. And it's the only article we have on the man. By your argumentation so far, you would probably ask for that article to be deleted, because, you know... it is only one sentence..., it is pointless. Please do not focus on the length of the article, and focus instead on the notability of its subject, regardless of the quality of the article itself. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 02:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If Bill Cliton was a fictional character,and his entire story was already told in 3 movie articles, then yes, yes I would nominate it for deletion. Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also people have had a month to add stuff to this article, plenty of time in IMO to add stuff, since nothing was added, it is pointless.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 02:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep A popular character in four Hollywood hit films, most certainly qualifies. Jonesy702 (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Per WP:BOLD, I've rewritten and expanded the article. I include a (very brief) sketch of the character from the 1960 and 2001 films. I have yet to add the recent sequels, but I think what's there is a fair stub of an article. Between the films themselves and other sources (Reviews?), the article is sourceable. As a result, I'd say it can be kept with further expansion. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per ZZ. Main character of 4 films and it should be easy to find reviewers who have contrasted the way the character was portrayed by different actors. Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with the changes made so far, per Edward321's arguments. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mother 3 characters

List of Mother 3 characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of the plot and characters sections of the Mother 3 game and is thus duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - It does not assert notability, and it doesn't require coverage past the main article. TTN (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Um. Except the characters aren't covered in the main article. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• They're covered in the plot section, which I guess could be trimmed and split into a characters section. TTN (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Article lacks sources and appears to fail WP:NOT#GUIDE. The Mother 3 article does NOT include this information, but the addition of this information would detract from it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Individual MOTHER3 character bios were already deleted/merged into this article once before; deleting anything else would be overkill, and considering the number and the importance of the characters in relation to the plot, the main MOTHER3 article would suffer as well. In addition, trying to merge the important characters into the main article would make it too long. Reference-wise, you're not going to find a whole lot in relation to this article, especially considering that most "reliable sources" on the internet don't have the focus or translation skills necessary to interpret the plot. (unless we start pointing to foreign language pages as sources); you'd be hard-pressed to find any more reliable sources. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And that's the point, no reliable sources, no article, thats what policy clearly says. However, you would be surprised how much of this could be put into the main article in a condensed form, because even though there is a large plot section, there is not yet a dedicated character section. If you want, borrow some of this and distill it for the main article, but your right it wont all fit. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• If there's no "reliable sources", then the MOTHER3 article should not exist at all, considering that most of the references in the MOTHER3 article do not specifically refer to the story, and the ones that would are not in English. You can't have it both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs) 03:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT#GUIDE/WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It is established that the game is notable. Therefor Wikipedia can have an article on the game. Wikipedia is not paper and thus can afford to have a detailed article on the game. Wikipedia is not a game-guide and thus should stop short of providing complete game statistics and walkthrus. Standing consensus until recently has been that lists of characters were within the bounds of acceptable detail and that if such lists made the main article too long they should be split out to a separate list page. I see no indication that this consensus has changed. This information would be 'unassailable' if it were included in the main article. Deleting it as a sub-article is illogical and serves little purpose except to discourage good article design... people should then lump everything together into one long article rather than organizing it into logical sub-pages. --CBD 11:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It has done no such thing, as there are no references from reliable sources, and without those it will never be a "Good Article". And without that, there is no demonstrated need for a subarticle. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources is only a deletion reason if it is believed that reliable sources could never be found. Everything in this article could obviously be reliably sourced to the game itself. The usual argument then is that the game is not an independent source, but that's IMO a spurious argument given that it only seems to be applied as a mask for 'IDONTLIKEIT'. Take a gander at the ISO 3166-1 featured list... entirely sourced to the ISO. Every bit as lacking in independent sources as this article and all the others on fictional topics nominated for deletion. Indeed, there are dozens of featured lists with the same sort of sourcing. It is apparently ok (even 'featurable') for every topic except fiction. --CBD 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum to argue about policy, if you interested in doing that, please continue at WP:FICTION talk page. And yes, the whole reason I am nominating these articles, and the vast majority of which have been deleted, because I believe there to be no references to be found because they don't exist. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you think that the article should not exist (especially when it's been trimmed so many times already for various inane reasons) does not mean you wantonly suggest articles for deletion without at least bringing it up on the respective article's talk page and say "We need more sources", or not try to find some yourself. Random article destruction doth not a good encyclopedia make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

PeanutCheeseBar, either provide some references or your just talking to no purpose. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That still does not address why you could not have started a discussion about it, or sought to improve the article. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I believe that none will be found. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You're making an assumption though, and you're not trying to make improvements before salting what's already been butchered before. Please try harder next time. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Mother 3 Edward321 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per CBD. The information is within the bounds of typical game coverage. And it just makes the information more easily organized. matt91486 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Mother 3User:Ri0026 I always thought it was kind of silly that it had it's own page when it'd fit much easier into the bounds of the core Mother 3 site. Don't delete it though, the characters are an integral part of Mother 3's appeal.

Which is a problem as Wikipedia is not a gameguide!! There needs to be actual sourcing of this material and relevance outside of just the game to have its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This list is simply not good enough for Wikipedia. Not many people are interested in computer role-playing game like Mother 3. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as a separate article, as there are obviously people out there -- both Wikipedians and students doing research who will want this article. The Mother 3 article is a bit long already, and has NO section for the characters, just a link. I'll start a mini-section, just in case the consensus becomes to merge. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Moijd. Delete away! Bearian (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as noted. Bearian (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenzo Tenma

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

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the character section of the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Already well covered in Monster (manga). Practically an orphan. I can't even find a link to it from the main article, though its What links here page says there is one. Collectonian (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. The main article's (short) summary is powerful weaksauce. --Gwern (contribs) 03:16 11 December 2007 (GMT)
• Delete per nom. Not notable. --Jack Merridew 11:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per the guidelines of WP:FICT into Monster (manga) -- which does not, contra above, cover him very well for a protagonist. I would have thought, given this is exactly the sort of award-winning series that becomes a critical darling, and the homage behind his name, that he would have been discussed enough to establish notability, but I'm not finding any reliable sources. If someone else finds something, though, I'll immediately change that to an immediate-and-obvious-keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Quasirandom. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, per Quasirandom's reasoning. I just found out tonight that Monster (the anime) has finally be licensed in the States, so there is the potential for his notability to expand in the future (due to the fact that he comes from such an excellent series/manga). Merging key details into his somewhat limited bio would be a good contribution to the main article. bwowen talk•contribs 06:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 additional sources found and noted below in this discussion, which must be added into the article. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demon Eyes Kyo

Demon Eyes Kyo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the character list, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)