Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< December 15 December 17 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect. It seems that the nominator has sufficiently merged the content already, so a simple redirect will do. Singularity 06:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rapids Mall

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

Non-notable mall in Wisconsin, fails WP:RS. Tagged for notability and references since September with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I don't see references in this article and a one minute google search didn't find any independent sources, I believe that the main mall in a city of this size should have easily have multiple independent sources. All of the anchor stores listed are notable national chains. A good candidate for expansion in my humble opinion. Royalbroil 17:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I added the corner stores comment to show that it is larger than some strip mall. I change my comment to weak delete since you did research to find sources. I did notice that you nominated the Forest Mall for deletion which is more notable than this mall. I do disagree with the Forest Mall deletion. Que sera sera (translates to "whatever will be will be"). Royalbroil 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A merge, as suggested below, is a better way to deal with this article. Royalbroil 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Slim Merge→Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin—In the context of the city, this is a notable venue; therefore, I would suggest the creation of an "Economy" section in the city article, according to the guideline related at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline and have mention (with reference(s)) of the mall therein. One of the places to look for online pieces related to a mall is in the local newspaper; in the present case that would be the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune. Searching recent news there shows that most "mall" related mentions are to the Fox River Mall, which appears to be by far more notable. Searching the archives of this newspaper shows that by far the most common pieces are "event x to happen at Rapids Mall", which goes to verify the role of the venue in the community, but does not establish its notabilty. There are a couple of newspaper articles specifically about the mall in the Archives of this newspaper, such as "Two years after sale, Rapids Mall fills up" (2004-08-27), "Post-Christmas crowd keeps Rapids Mall alive" (2005-12-27) and "Rapids Mall loses anchor" (2003-05-17). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as another small US mall. If there is anything to merge to the town, do it before this AfD closes. Don't make it a condition since there is little if anything worth merging. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:36, 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) 00:00, 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 Delete --JForget 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sazib Mahmud Bhuiyan

Sazib Mahmud Bhuiyan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person, indepentant cover is unlikely. This article was speedied already, but remade with slightly more context. Note that all references are user generated content on said pages. The author of article also seems to be the subject. I am also nominating the following, related articles.

Humane_Saga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(Series of novels written by said person, none of which exist outside of social networking sites, or sites owned by said person.)
Red on Green (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (First novel, see above) Carados (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, for doing that. Again. >_<-Carados (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all, sorry. If he wins the Dundee Book Prize (which is also self-nominated), then maybe. Until then, his work appears to all be self-published on Lulu and Bebo. — BillC talk 01:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all since all information is self-published, problems with verifiability as well as notability. Pseudomonas(talk) 01:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all, as User:Beecontent does appear to be the man himself: [1]. I'd delete all self-created articles. Full stop. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources to attest to notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing reliable to vouch for his notability yet. Master of Puppets Care to share? 22:05, 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 delete. Coredesat 04:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of St. Thomas Residence Hall Association

University of St. Thomas Residence Hall Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails to satisfy WP:ORG and WP:N through lack of existing verifiable, independent secondary sources Noetic Sage 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize, but Delete Other universities' RHA articles have been AfDed as well and from personal experience with my The Residence Hall Association at Florida Institute of Technology AfD. Individual RHA articles that does not show valid notability fails WP:ORG and fails WP:UNI's article guidelines on student organizations. Also, this article is unsourced and seems to have a large chunk of the article listing the names of people who were involved in the organization, also something that violates Wikipedia policies. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with main article. Useless list of people should be removed. Billscottbob (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Supporters of the article should consider moving the article to the Students Wikia instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 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. Coredesat 04:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan State University Residence Halls Association

Michigan State University Residence Halls Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails to satisfy WP:ORG and WP:N through lack of existing verifiable, independent secondary sources Noetic Sage 22:24, 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 per WP:N. Bad faith nom. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roy R. Theriot

Roy R. Theriot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completing unfinished nomination by User:JzG, seems Twinkle choked again. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is "Wikistalking" in which you are engaging. Mr. Theriot was mayor of Abbeville and an elected statewide official and leader of French culture promotion in Louisiana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Comptroller can be a major office. Millard Fillmore was the comptroller of New York State when he became vice president. Carole Strayhorn was comptroller of Texas when she ran for governor in 2006. Alan Cranston was comptroller of California when he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1968. Bob Bullock of Texas probably could have qualified he had held no office higher than that of comptroller. (He was also lieutenant governor.) Former Texas Comptroller John Sharp should have an article, but I haven't gotten to him yet. I can only do those I have information on at the time. There is also no article at this time on Comptroller Susan Combs.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

False, he was included in the 1988 edition of A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography, a massive 2-volume work from the University of Southwestern Louisiana (now ULL). The biography included only those deceased prior to 1987.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There should be a separate article on Sam Theriot, Roy Theriot's son, who served in the legislature, but I don't the bio information to do that at this time.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:28, 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. John254 02:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allison Kolb

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

An auditor, defeated in a bid for his party's nomination. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • An auditor, defeated in a bid for his party's nomination. Which is grounds for an article to be kept around!!! Did you just submit this for fun? William Anderson (User:Wanderson9) 23:18, 16 December 2007 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.165.25 (talk)
  • Keep. It could do with in-line citations but otherwise it appears to meet WP:V and WP:N. Billscottbob (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepAllison Kolb wasthe State Auditor an elected statewide official at the time1(even today the Louisiana Legislative Auditor who is appointed by the Legislature Is very powerful)--Looktothis (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Disproportionate coverage, of no concern to a general encyclopedia. we need a Louisiana Wikia for material like this. mention in one book, and the rest are primary sources and an uncritical obit. DGG (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Guy and DGG. Fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Per WP:BIO, statewide elected officials are granted a presumption of inherent notabilty ("Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature"). the ample reliable and verifiable sources provided here clearly satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. It completely strains credulity to claim that this article fails WP:BIO, and that an admin would be ignorant of this clear claim of notability only adds to the damage. Alansohn (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and format the references better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep being a state auditor is not a trivial position. Would we delete all the articles for all these former Irish Ministers of State (finance)? Of course not. Former Ministers of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland? Probably not. So if Louisiana is bigger than Ireland and much bigger than Northern Ireland, why is it necessary to delete articles about state auditors? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia -- if an article is properly sourced and of historical interest, then let's keep it. So what if only people in Cork, Belfast and New Orleans are interested in these respective histories -- we still provide a useful historical resource (and don't even get me started on our zillions of articles about professional wrestling, manga and Pokemon). --A. B. (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BIO and User:Alansohn. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. In all honesty, it shows a pretty low understanding of the notability guidelines presenting this article for deletion (sorry Guy if this may sound harsh, but I think you botched this one badly).--Aldux (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I think Guy made an honest mistake, too, but I appreciate how hard he has tried to work with Billy on these articles, so I'd hardly say Guy "botched" it. I know Billy looked at a lot of sources when he was writing his thesis and I wish he'd just cite them in all these articles that keep going to AfD. Sources don't have to be available on line -- old newspaper clippings work, too. There are more of Billy's articles I'd like to keep but we really can't work just on his say-so, any more than Wikipedia can accept mine or yours. --A. B. (talk) 18:48, 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. Coredesat 04:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles and Virginia de Gravelles

Charles and Virginia de Gravelles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An article lacking independent sources (other than the author's own master's dissertation) on two figures in a state party machine neither of whom appears to have been elected to public office. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Louisiana Political Hall of Fame inductees in 2007:

Diana E. Bajoie, Sally Clausen, Charles & Virginia De Gravelles, Huntington "Hunt" Downer, Jr., Theodore "Ted" Jones, Mary Landrieu, Sean O'Keefe

The de Gravelleses are the only couple jointly inducted into the hall of fame. They are considered the first registered white Republicans in the 20th Century in Lafayette Parish.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Louisiana-related deletions, Politicians-related deletions, and History-related deletions. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Louisiana for a list of related AfDs of articles by the same editor. --A. B. (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • delete it's not the Louisiana hall of fame, its the Louisiana Political Museum and hall of Fame, and I dont consider it a sufficiently critical source to determine notability. What's more there are no sources at all. The entire thing is based on a primary interview with the local branch of the state university oral history project, The first two white republication of a single parish is not notability. DGG (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Currently there are 97 inductees into the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame.


1993:

Hale Boggs, William C.C. Claiborne, James “Jimmie” Davis, P.A. “Pap” Dean, Edwin Edwards, Dudley LeBlanc, Earl K. Long, Huey P. Long, Russell B. Long, John J. McKeithen, Ernest “Dutch” Morial, B.B. “Sixty” Rayburn

1994:

Lenard Allen, Lindy Boggs, Victor Bussie, Allen J. Ellender, Gillis Long

1995:

Camille F. Gravel, Sam A. Hanna, Delesseps S. “Chep” Morrison, Zachary Taylor, Edward Douglas White

1996:

Louis Berry, James Carville, Mary Evelyn Parker, Leander Perez, Gus Weill

1997:

Oscar K. Allen, Murphy J. Foster, J. Bennett Johnston, Melinda Schweggmann, Dave Treen

1998:

Speedy O. Long, John H. Overton, Joe D. Waggonner, T. Harry Williams

1999:

D. J. “Cat” Doucet, Jimmy Fitzmorris, Douglas Fowler, Iris Kelso, Ed Renwick

2000:

Jefferson Caffery, William Jefferson, Jeannette Knoll, Jimmy Long, Charles “Buddy” Roemer

2001:

Wiley Hilburn, Jr., Robert Kennon, Harry Lee, Wade O. Martin, Jr., Harold McSween, Victor H. Schiro

2002:

Jesse H. Bankston, Kenneth W. Bowen, Harley Bozeman, Nathan Burl Cain, William J. “Bill” Dodd, Francis “Grevy” Grevemberg, John H. Hainkel, Jr., William Henson Moore III, Joe Sampite, Lillian Walker

2003:

John Alario, John Breaux, Jay Chevalier, Harry Connick, Sr., Murphy “Mike” Foster, Charles Fuselier, Carolyn Huntoon, Raymond Laborde, Robert Livingston, Richard Stalder, W.J. “Billy” Tauzin

2004:

William “Billy” Boles, “Charlie” DeWitt, Dudley Guglielmo, Sr., Doris

Lindsey Holland, Moon Landrieu, Edgar Mouton, Jr., Edmund Reggie, Virginia Shehee, Jack Wardlaw

2005:

Robert W. Bates, Carlos & Mary Flores, Eddie J. Jordan, Jr., J. Curtis Joubert, William "Bill" Lynch, Barbara Boggs Sigmund, Francis C. Thompson


2006:

Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, Charles "Charlie" Cook, Sylvan Friedman,

Donald E. Hines, W. Fox McKeithen, Cecil Picard, Victor "Vic" Stelly

2007:

Diana E. Bajoie, Sally Clausen, Charles & Virginia DeGravelles, Huntington "Hunt" Downer, Jr., Theodore "Ted" Jones, Mary Landrieu, Sean O'Keefe


This is inherent notability for any of the above names. About half have Wikipedia articles already.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I counted sixty-six of the ninety-three with Wikipedia article. All should qualify.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 01:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete, as there appears to be insufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources with which to write an acceptable article, and as it is believed that most of the article constitutes original research. This recommendation is without prejudice to restoration if sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources is found. John254 02:17, 21 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 01:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roland Rexviashvili

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

Fails WP:BIO as not playing in a professional league. Whether it is the top league of a country is utterly irrelevant, in accord with our guidelines. Punkmorten (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: playing for one of the leading clubs in Azerbaijan is sufficient notability, as far as I'm concerned, and as far as I can tell, FK Baku is a fully professional club. What concerns me though is that he's not included in the Current squad section of the article, and gets only nine google hits, this Wikipedia article and eight mirrors. AecisBrievenbus 22:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh c'mon, his club regularly plays in European cup quals. Strong keep. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not the issue. FK Baku certainly exists (note that they are the team at 5 in that league, not FK Olimpik Baku). The difficulty is in establishing whether Rexviashvili plays for them. Notwithstanding Aecis' reference above, this doesn't mention him (though I note they don't list anybody at number 11, so perhaps it's an omission). More digging...Tonywalton Talk 10:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dug... Keep. A Google search for Roland Rexiashvili comes up with several germane-looking hits. I say germane-"looking" because the one that looks definitive, http://www.bakifc.com/index.php?sub=1&sid=5&lang=eng has some sort of a problem. (the eufo.de link I gave above mentions bakifc.com as the FK Baku website). However the Google summary for that page reads "11, Rexviashvili Alexander Roland, half-back, 06.08.1974, 180, 76, Georgia.". http://www.myteamlist.co.uk/club.php?clubid=755 also mentions him. I'd say "strong" keep if he were mentioned on, say, the BBC or UEFA. Tonywalton Talk 10:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[2], FC Baku's site is dead, but here's its cached version (his profile), ow yeah, he played in Russia too[3], and if you search for normal transliteration of his surname instead of Azeri one, you'll find more[4], including BBC. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 10:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention he's a national team player[5]. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 10:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing to Strong Keep per MaxSem. Tonywalton Talk 10:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. After reviewing the sources and the information, this person is easily notable enough for Wikipedia. He plays for the leading club in Azerbaijan, has played for one of the leading clubs in Russia, and has played for the national football team of Georgia in at least one Euro 2004 qualifying match. I would recommend having a discussion about the title of the article though: Roland Rexviashvili or Roland Rekhviashvili. AecisBrievenbus 21:55, 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 delete given lack of context or sourcing, which the keep arguments do not address. Coredesat 04:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

List of schools of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Just a list. Do we need it? DimaG (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • No. Delete as an unneeded, unsourced list. Possibly a speedy candidate as it lacks context. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as unsourced, unwikified, orphaned listcruft. Also violates WP:SOAP as religious exposition without meaningful content or assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not needed NancyHeise (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral there is a feature article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami that this seems to relate to, including a mention of "Educational institutions consist of 63 elementary/middle schools, 13 high schools, two universities, and two seminaries". It may be useful if wikified, references and linked to that article. Barrylb (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep given the number of schools, an list for them makes sense. DGG (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - it would make sense to have lists like the nominated one to support List of schools by country. (wikification is strongly suggested) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:LIST, particularly as Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Florida undifferentiatedly includes schools in the state run by other dioceses or by religious orders independently of diocesan control. It should be tagged for sources alongside existing tags. I don't see the SOAP - it really is just a list of schools said to be run under the authority of this institution. In that respect a diocese is not much different from a County Council. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:06, 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.

Given the weight of the arguments and precedent of articles such as this, I conclude delete. Singularity 06:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben C. Toledano

Ben C. Toledano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An unsuccessful candidate for a mayoralty and local far-right journalist. No evidence of passing WP:BIO. Major soiurce was user:Billy Hathorn's masters dissertation. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Toledano article.Even if he were "just" a "local" "far-right" journalist, wouldn't he qualify? What if he were a "far-left" columnist? And is "local" acceptable for the large New Orleans metro area? Actually, he has worked for National Review, which is non-local. I have included an excerpt of one of his recent columns on the political aftermath of Katrina. Would this cause you to withdraw your opposition? Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep. The name has many relevant ghits but it may just be because his work has been published a lot on the internet. But if that is the case, doesn't that meet WP:N requirements? Billscottbob (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This bio does not pass WP:BIO. --Lockley (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't he qualify merely being being the Republican senatorial candidate in 1972 as well as the only Republican seriously to contest the New Orleans mayoral race? Plus, he is a fairly well-published journalist, as the article indicates. There is an article on Gloria Williams Hearn and she qualifies merely by being the Democratic U.S. House candidate in District 5 in 2004.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • delete unless we decide to change our policies and accept losing candidates of major for the national Senate & HR as notable. They have been consistently rejected in the past, I may be unusual here in think we should decide this by articulatable criteria rather than the chances of sourcing, and I think its time to reject the principle of ignoring consistency at Afd. It makes us look like irrepsonsible amateurs, instead of responsible amateurs aiming at a product of consistent quality. DGG (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So, why haven't you recommended the deletion of Gloria Williams Hearn, a failed congressional candidate? Is it because of the author? Why would educator Hearn qualify and journalist Toledano not?

Billy Hathorn (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a significant figure in recent regional history and journalism. The characterization of him as "far-right" is absurd. See his very recent article in Commonweal about New Orleans and how its Establishment had destroyed it before Katrina did. He assuredly deserves an entry.96.232.208.7 (talk) 12:26, 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 Speedy delete A7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daisaku Chiba

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

Murder victims are not appropriate subjects for encyclopedia articles except in unusual circumstances. Fg2 (talk) 21:07, 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. John254 01:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roderick Miller

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

Another obituary sourced from obituaries (and the ubiquitous master's dissertation of creator user:Billy Hathorn) Guy (Help!) 21:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Wrong, he was a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives from 1966-1968, and state House members automatically qualify. His obituary was a news article in the Lafayette Daily Advertiser. Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So he was. If only you'd respond to the RfC we would have less of this sort of problem. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Mr. Miller was the No. 1 Republican in Lafayette Parish in the 1960s. He was elected to the legislature over very great odds and difficulties. Now, it is common for a Republican to win such elections in Lafayette, but it certainly was not in 1966. There is an interesting story too of the friendship that developed betwen political rivals Miller and "Sonny" Mouton. I cannot imagine this being challenged. Rules shouldn't be so rigid as to miss interesting stories.

Billy Hathorn (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 delete. Coredesat 04:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hall M. Lyons

Hall M. Lyons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A minor politician, failed nominee, essentially an obituary. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The story of Lyons and his father is somewhat unusual and interesting. He ran statewide only once: U.S. Senate, third party, 1972. You should allow for unusual circumstances instead of allowing only former state legislators and higher-ranking statewide officials.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the article, or did you just push "delete" when you saw in the history who authored the article? What do you know about Louisiana politics? Have you heard of Henry Fuqua?

Billy Hathorn (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - we do allow for unusual circumstances, but I don't see any here. Sourcing to reliable independent published sources could persuade me here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:47, 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. Coredesat 04:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Premonth Calendar

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

Non-notable alternative calendar. Just one of many from a chronic calendar creator - see this page. (Calendar creator is here as User:Karl Palmen but I assume he did not create this article.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, notability not established from the sourcing and the article. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete, not notable enough for Wikipedia (I even forgot about this idea of mine). It may be put in [Calendar wiki]. Karl (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The calendar was put forward merely as an example of a lunisolar calendar specified by seven rules as follows:

(1) A rule that shows how months of 29 or 30 days are divided into lunar weeks. The days of the lunar week may be named.

(2) A rule to define a basic year of 354 days with months alternating between 30 and 29 days. The months may be named.

(3) A rule defining a leap month year, where an leap month of 30 days is added to a basic year to form a 384-day year. The leap month may be named.

(4) A rule defining a leap day year where an extra day is added to a basic year (or leap month year).

(5) A rule defining which years are leap month years.

(6) A rule defining which years are leap day years.

(7) A rule defining the when the first day of year 1 or some other chosen date occurs.

Karl (talk) 13:19, 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. John254 01:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Willis Ricketts

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

Unsuccessful gubernatorial nominee, sources are essentially obituaries, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. This article did cite as its major source creator User:Billy Hathorn's master's dissertation. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I see Guy's point here, but also see that a gubenatorial candidate is likeley to have notability. It seems to me that user Billy Hathorn should be able to cite the sources which he cited in his Ph.D. dissertation. I would assume that the dissertation was not purely OR. I could support a keep with references. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Kevin Murray (talk · contribs), I could also support a "Keep" if more references were provided. The article's current sources are not enough, but with a subject like this more sources should be able to be found. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep and cleanup -- a losing candidate is inherently notable at this level of politics (even a Republican in 1962 in Arkansas, then essentially a one-party state controlled by Democrats since the Civil War). --A. B. (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I don't believe in inherent notability. I believe in notability per the test of "multiple independent non-trivial sources". The only non-trivial sources here are user:Billy Hathorn's own research (which was cited, but I removed the citation as it's unpublished) and an obituary in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why have you not challenged Gloria Williams Hearn, whose notability is being an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. House in 2004?

Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So, why would you keep Willis Ricketts and not Ben C. Toledano and Hall M. Lyons?

Billy Hathorn (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Agree entirely with DGG. It's nearly unfathomable that a gubernatorial candidate for one of the two main parties wouldn't have attained sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:N, although the article needs sourcing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:44, 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. 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)
  • 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)
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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Yokine, Western Australia. I get the feeling that after this discussion, there doesn't seem to be enough presence of notability for this article to stand on its own, and yet, it is a well-known center in the region, and rightly deserves a mention on WP. Feel free to contest this if new information proves my assertion incorrect. Singularity 06:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dog Swamp Shopping Centre

Dog Swamp Shopping Centre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable mall; a search for sources online turned up nothing useful. Speedy (A7) and PROD were both contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, the one mention in the one source alone does not give enough sense of notability. Perhaps within an encyclopedia dedicated to that particular locale, but not in this project. At least, not evident from present state of the article and its sources. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • I hate to resort to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but... well, we've got literally hundreds of other articles on malls; this mall has been around for 40 years, and it seems to meet the criteria for inclusion. DS (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Because one of the EL's specifically states "Dog Swamp Shopping Centre is one of Yokine’s major landmarks." Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • ummm ... it isnt the Mall making that claim. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Correct, and Yokine is a residential suburb [6] of a shade under 10,000 people - the centre is at the southwest corner of this map (Wanneroo/Wiluna NE) while Dianella Plaza (about the same size) isn't far away (it's at Alexander Drive/Grand Promenade about 7 blocks NE of the suburb). Neither are at the size we normally write about, but it may be notable for other reasons. Orderinchaos 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, despite the beguiling photograph. --Lockley (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability aside, ya gotta love the name. Edison (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 03:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Checking the usual places for sources - I know of this shopping centre, used to pass it every day (it's at a major junction about 5km north of the CBD) but I'm not absolutely sure it's large/important enough to be notable, although 1967 would indeed make it one of Perth's first enclosed malls alongside Westfield Innaloo. It's interesting as Mount Hawthorn, about 2-3km away, was the main shopping district for the entire north earlier in the 1960s (traditional main-road-with-convenience-shops-either-side type) - so this one may have had a role in its demise. Orderinchaos 03:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just have been added some facts for the shopping centre with references. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 04:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain pending further research I am currently in the process of looking into the history of this centre, and from what I am seeing from looking thru LexNex/Factiva there seems to be some notability, particularly to do with localised issues of newsworthy status and some awards. I will be looking through these over the next 24hrs and will update and change my vote accordingly. Thewinchester (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with locality - ie Yokine, Western Australia--Matilda talk 05:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • In line with Wikipedia:Places of local interest (which in turn refers to Wikipedia:Notability) "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I see no evidence that for this centre, or for the neighbouring Centro Flinders, there is significant coverage of this type. The references provided so far are links to the owner's web site (Westpac Property Trust), to the architects and to the local government's website - doesn't meet my view of independance from the subject. --Matilda talk 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, landmarks both large and small are notable enough to be included, and verifiability is a non-issue here. RFerreira (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, ~30 stores isn't that large a center. Best to merge with the suburb article, I think. Lankiveil (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Merge -- per Lankiveil's reasoning. - Longhair\talk 00:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • so, are you saying that this mall just is WP:NOTBIGENOUGH to warrent its own Article ? Basing anything on size or sheer numbers says nothing about if it should/should not have an Article. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It does come back to notability. For example, a shopping centre of that size doesn't even have its own website, and almost every secondary source on it is its own development history. We did find a few - for some obscure reason, there have been a *lot* of heroin deaths at this shopping centre (considering such are rare in Perth overall), with ample coverage in the state's main newspaper. It also had the first Adultshop.com store in a shopping centre (West Australian; Inside Retailing; both 2003) the White Pages confirms the store is still there.) We also have a reasonable ownership history of the centre going back to pre-1997, all from retail industry sources. Whether the effort to put such in is justified, however, is questionable. I say this as someone who normally votes Keep on major shopping centre AfDs, and have saved several from certain deletion - but this one just doesn't quite seem to have the necessary value to the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 19:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sheer size has nothing to do with notability. If small things are non-notable then there is no need for the Quark article, which literally describes itself as generic . I simply point out where persons advocating delete (or similar) are doing so based upon erroneous concepts of notability. Esp. when that concept then tends to propagate across to other AfD's. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I am prepared to be convinced that size might have something to do with notability, however in that case there is unlikely to be a shortage of independant reliable sources discussing the subject. With quarks there are multiple independant reliable sources discussing the things. This mall lacks notability as it does not meet the criterion of having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - size might matter as there might be little to say about a shopping centre with 30 shops that apparently lacks much charm or any other qualities that might make it unique--Matilda talk 03:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC):
Beliving X number of stores is, and X number of stores isnt notable, relies on common sense, but this is Wiki, and we know there is no common sense. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment, of course size isn't the only indicator, but this particular center doesn't seem to have any outstanding features that make it different to any other small community shopping center. In other words, how is this place, apart from its amusing name, any more notable than the small strip of local shops down the road from me? Lankiveil (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete just another small mall. If needed to get a consensus to get rid of the article, then consider this support for a Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per all the reasons given above. It also reminds me about the discussion for highpoint shopping centre, while in my opinion it was more notable. For anyone interested, the discussion can be found here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Highpoint_shopping_centre. Kingpomba (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, there's a world of difference between a small local shopping center and a four-story monstrosity with hundreds upon hundreds of stores. Lankiveil (talk) 09:12, 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. Coredesat 04:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ledgewood Mall

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

This mall doesn't seem to be notable. Tagged for additional references since September with no improvement. A search for sources online turned up nothing of use. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:20, 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 04:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billy J. Guin

Billy J. Guin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A politician who has risen to the giddy height of commissioner of public utilities. And he was on the school board, too. The references are not independent (at least the two remaining ones aren't, I removed two citations of the article author's own unpublished work). Guy (Help!) 20:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You must not understand that commissioner of public utilities was a citywide office in a city of about 180,000. The office no longer exists, as the city switched to a mayor single-member district council. All that is explained in the article. It ill behooves you to belittle the subject of the articles.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, notability not established in independent sources. WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete, notability not established. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:42, 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 Keep --JForget 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Champagne in popular culture

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

Reads like an essay, and the title doesn't really doesn't relate to the article's content. Likely contains OR, no sources. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See here. Give me a chance to add info, refs etc – the article is barely 5 minutes old! --mikaultalk 19:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Champagne (wine). If it grows too big to remain a section in that article, then break it off. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletions. -- Bduke (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The creation of this article was the result of a discussion over at WikiProject_Wine about the frequent apperance of pop-culture references in article of individual champagne houses, and the sometimes questionable creation of separate articles for individual champagnes. It was felt that the creation of a separate article on this subject (since the main Champagne (wine) article is rather long as it is) could be a way of increasing the encylopedic value of information presently strewn out in separate articles, as well as being a tool to "clean up" certain other champagne-related articles. Tomas e (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepThis is, in effect, a spinoff from Champagne, specifically this section. Content at present is drawn from said section, a slightly more concise version of which will form the basis for the lead of a much longer page. I envisage the proposed page will be similar in approach and scope to Absinthe in popular culture, except Champagne is probably a more pervasive cultural phenomenon with a much greater body of respected work written on the subject. --mikaultalk 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A Whoa Nelly Keep! As Mick referenced above, this article was created after a discussion on the Wine Project about how to deal with a problem article listed on WP:AN/I and the general cultural/pop culture notes that are popping up in champagne related articles. While this article is in its infancy, it is undoubtedly encyclopedic and notable like the Extraterrestrial life in popular culture, Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, Albinism in popular culture, Orangutans in popular culture or even Wikipedia in culture articles. Once expanded to its full potential, the contents will overwhelm the Champagne (wine) article and so a merge is not very viable. The timing of this AfD is very unfortunate and too hasty, especially given the track record of the editor who created the article and the Wikipedia Project behind it. There was nothing to indicate that this new article was not going to develop into one of Wikipedia's other quality wine articles like International Grape Genome Program, History of Rioja wine, Tempranillo, etc. I suggest withdrawing this AfD and giving the Wine Project a few days to work on the article. If any editor still does not feel that it warrants inclusion in Wikipedia then a new AfD can started. But this current one is way too premature. AgneCheese/Wine 00:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, a great deal of RS material to be sourced for this article given a little time, and "likely contains OR, no sources" nomination is off the mark. MURGH disc. 00:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sending to AfD 2 minutes after article creation is not an assumption of good faith. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Topic is notable, and although it took the wine project more than 2 minutes to bring the article up to its normal standards, it's certainly there now. --- The Bethling(Talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep At this point a very clearly-sourced article, showing clear notability. Had I had not been involved in related discussions, I would close as a snow keep. Perhaps someone else will. DGG (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Stand back as I shock the community and !vote keep for an IPC article. This is the way that IPC articles should be. Actual sourced discussion of the topic, not just lists of "this one guy said 'champagne' on TV this one time" trivial crap. In saying that, I strongly urge editors to watch the "Modern day" and especially the "In movies" sections as they have a lot of potential to attract reams of just the sort of "look, champagne!" crufty garbage that are the ruination of most IPC articles. Otto4711 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, with the added note that I believe this is the first time ever I've supported any type of "...in popular culture" type article. Why? Because this is actually an article, complete with sources, rather than a bulleted list of trivial trivia. RFerreira (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per pretty much everybody above. Circeus (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. No "so-and-so said 'champagne' in passing" in this article. Nice work, wine project. Brad (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG and Otto4711. This one may be a snowball keep. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:01, 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 Delete --JForget 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natural mathematics

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

Looks a lot like WP:OR crackpottery, a very similar text possibly by the same author was given a withering review at [7]. Salix alba (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Penny Maddy and her work in the philosophy of mathematics are certainly notable. But I'm not convinced that this article accurately and fairly represents her position — from the preface of her cited book, she is discussing the issue of how certain sets of axioms can be seen as natural, but not straying from the axiomatic deductive framework of mathematics, very far from the claim in the natural mathematics article here that "arguments striving for internal consistency inherently lead to paradox". So I think we should separate the two issues: is naturality an important issue in mathematics (yes), and is the current article a good unbiased non-fringe discussion of naturality in mathematics (I suspect not). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. First, I suspect that notability issues may be confused by other topics being discussed under the same name. There's a concept in children's mathematics education which goes by the same name ([8] [9]), but is unrelated to what this article talks about (as far as I can understand what this article is talking about). Second, with regard to David Eppstein's point, I believe the best way to address the notable and legitimate philosophical topic of "naturality" would be to de-rezz this article and start from scratch. Anville (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete crackpot nonsense without prejudice toward re-creation as a reasonable article about math education, natural concepts in mathematics, or some kind of disambig page. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Comptely incoherent. To nonsensical to even determine if there's an underlying core worth keeping. If it's a legit topic, it can be recreated in an understandable manner. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice toward re-creation as per CRGreathouse. I don't know if this can be called crackpottery; usually, that kind of writing makes some (twisted) sense, but this is so utterly incoherent that it defies classification.  --Lambiam 10:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - incoherent nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is one of those unusual occasions where one doesn't say "per the nominator", but "per the web log posting", where it is stated:

    A quick Google search turns up that the term is used most commonly in teaching: mathematics is best taught by instructing children by using "natural" problems, not abstract mathematical ones. I'm guessing that's not the one we're supposed to be interested in! Almost every other reference to "natural mathematics" is written by John Ryskamp, himself. There is a wikipedia entry, but it is poorly referenced and probably written by Ryskamp as well.

    Yes, this article is badly referenced. Yes, it's a fair assumption that Jrysk (talk · contribs) is John Ryskamp. Yes, as also noted by Anville, there's a concept in children's mathematics eduction that goes by this name but has nothing to do with this. Yes, my searches too simply turn up a number of papers written by Ryskamp and submitted to every self-submission web site that xe can find. Several of them are copies and pastes of where xe added xyr ideas to Wikibooks and abused it as a free hosting service for working the formulation of xyr idea into shape. Yes, xe has copied and pasted the Wikibooks' version into many Usenet and WWW discussion fora postings. No, no-one else has acknowledged this idea and it has not become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. It has yet to escape its voluminous creator.

    Perhaps the most bizarre of these self-submissions is one paper (Ryskamp, John Henry (2007-05-02). "The Pratt-Ryskamp Exchange on Set Theory, Paradox, Garciadiego and the Foundations of Computer Science". . SSRN 984129) where Ryskamp documents an exchange of messages between xyrself and Vaughn Pratt where Pratt comments on the "continuing absence of any technical content" from Ryskamp, the lack of any substance whatsoever in xyr arguments, and the fact that the people that xe cites in the exposition of xyr idea don't actually say what xe says they do.

    It seems clear that this is canonical original research, that is forbidden by project policy, and an abuse of both Wikipedia and Wikibooks as support mechanisms for a massive self-publicity campaign. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikibooks is not, either. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 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. John254 01:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bunny Roger

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

Biographical article on person with zero asserted notability. The only refs are obituaries, which don't truly count. Only one page links there. Reywas92Talk 18:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Why don't obituaries truly count? The Independent is a major national newspaper, not a local paper which publishes "vanity" obituaries, so to have an obituary there establishes notability per WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." And the number of pages linking to the article is totally irrelevant - where in policy or guidelines does it state that that is a reason for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It isn't, but nothing linking to it is often a sign of non-notability. So he dies and an independent obit was in a newpaper, but what are his assertions of notability? Please explain why a couturier who throws lavish parties is notable. See if you can find any other references to establish his notability more strongly. According to WP:N, the links presume him notable, but don't guarantee it. Again, even if the obits are independent, why does that assert notability? Reywas92Talk 19:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability can be asserted; the current sources aren't enough. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - squarely satisfies the notability guideline for people. The Independent is a major reliable source, a major daily newspaper, and wrote an article entirely devoted to him. Notability guidelines say nothing of sources being disqualified for being obituaries, or for persons being in the fashion industry. The New York Times in one article calls him "famous" and his events "legendary." [10] Famous and legendary are certainly notable. Articles like this round out our coverage of the London society and fashion scene of the 1960s through 1990s, a curious but not trivial subject. Wikidemo (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Wikidemo (talk · contribs) and Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) - WP:V is satisfied, and looks like there is coverage in other independent sources to allow future article expansion as well. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Weak keep Wikidemo has demonstrated that he has been noticed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well known society figure in his day. Who made up the rule that obituaries in major national newspapers (well, the Independent anyway) don't count as sources? Nick mallory (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no such rule. A better rule is that children should be seen but not heard. Obvious keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable by virtue of having been noted -- Masterzora (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep As creator, I had heard of Roger's dandism and fashion nous, and so created the article. An obit in the Indy certainly justifies notability. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: At first glance he doesn't seem notable, but after reading the sources I feel he is. I thought that NY Times article was referenced? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:50, 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 delete. Citations are improved but remain weak. The one award is difficult to quantify as to its importance, particularly since "coveted" appears to be a required adjective most of the time in relation to it whenever it is referenced, as in "the coveted Casinomeister award". Pigman☿ 01:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vegas Partner Lounge

Vegas Partner Lounge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination ~ version at time of AFD nomination Edit-revert-edit-revert-edit PROD seesaw (not quite a war) ends here. Original PROD nominator stated: "Unreferenced company article; fails WP:CORP". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - I was the one who prodded it, therefore I cannot but agree with the nomination above. --Nehwyn (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Find sources: 2007 December 16 — news, books, scholar Addhoc (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unsourced article and google news archive search produces only press releases. Addhoc (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable online casino company. The article needs cleanup maybe, but deletion isn't necessary. (Promotional language can be edited, for example.) Rray (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Calling the article unreferenced is excessively nitpicky. A reference mentioned in the article was in the external links, which is pretty common. I moved it to the refeence section and cleaned it up. As a private company CORP is always problematic. The single article is for a company with multiple websites. The main site plainly meets WP:WEB, and so would most of the subsidiary websites that this company owns. Having the one article keeps from multiple, thinner, articles about basically the same thing. This article prevents content forking, is not (now) written as an advertisement, and covers a multi-million dollar company whose subsidiaries are more generally known than the parent. 2005 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The ghits linked by Addhoc are websites owned by Vegas Partner Lounge, so fails as independent sources. That the company exists is not in doubt, but notability has not been asserted or proved. The article fails WP:ORG. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The websites linking to it are not owned by the company! Some are of course as they own a network of properties, as the article highlights. But beyond that it obviously has hundreds of independant sources, as does it's various sites like here, here, etc. The company itself, especially in conjunction with it's subsidiary companies plainly meets WP:ORG in terms of volume of coverage. There can't be any doubt about that, but in terms of very reliable sources there are less, but there are enough to justify an article. In no way is this objectively a trivial or genuinely non-notable company. 2005 (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I'd be more convinced by evidence of the independent sources. It seems odd to provide evidence to confirm my view, and yet not provide evidence to support the article! Saying there are independent sources, yet not providing evidence of them is not a convincing argument. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Please at least click the links. You might have even done some diligence yourself before commenting on an Afd at all. Pretending something isn't so without even looking isn't helpful. The first search results alone brings up 126,000 results. Obviously many are trivial, and some are on the associated sites, but the widespread referencing of the parent site or its subsidiaries is not in doubt. 2005 (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
In a Google search for "Vegas Partner Lounge", I find coverage on casinocity.com and on casinomeister.com. Looking deeper into the results I see that they're approved by eCOGRA. These are all indicators of notability. Being unreferenced isn't a valid deletion reason anyway. It has to be impossible to find references before deletion is appropriate, and that's clearly not the case here. Rray (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The original nominator should withdraw the nomination. Afd's should only occur when someone wants to take the responsibility to nominate something for deletion, and state reasons for such. There are none and as such this is a nuisance nomination. It should be speedy closed and if someone wants to advocate an AFD they can. 2005 (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: If a PROD notice is removed, then re-instated in a non-trivial manner (i.e. not as a response to vandalism), that is an invitation to bring something to AFD as it indicates controversy over the deletion. What you're suggesting is that there shouldn't be any procedural nominations to AFD. If that is your point, I'd suggest your taking it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion as a complaint against the type nominations allowed right now. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
      • The prod was reattached while reverting a change that addresed the prod! And no, an addition, subtraction and readding of a prod does not mean an AFD should occur. There is no such thing as a procedural nomination. Please only nominate articles for deletion that YOU think should be deleted. There is nothing to discuss here. Speedy close is the only appropriate action. If someone wants to state a case for an afd, they can do so. If you want to establish something called a procedural nomination, then you need to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Till then, please don't make nominations without justifying them with your own point of view, as the deletion page requires: Reason the page should be deleted. 2005 (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I will not be taking your advice, but thank you for your opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, at the risk of tipping off further controversy, the references provided are really not independent enough to count as reliable sources in this case. The individual properties held by this company may be notable, but the holding company itself does not appear to be. Lankiveil (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
    • To prevent content forking previous AFD's decided to make one article for the parent company of these various online gambling sites, rather than in this case about a half dozen articles. So it's no solution to delete this one and create six similar articles for sub-entities that all easily meet WP:WEB. It is a serious Wikipedia problem that there is no clear way to deal with inconsistencies, but it's obviously silly to make six articles for this one company, while only one for similar (and even larger) companies like Cassava Enterprises. The holding company is plainly notable as the owner of each individual property; and articles on the individual properties would be substantial content forks since they would all say similar things to "they are owned by Vegas Partner Lounge, which is..." So deleting this as suggested above makes no sense in terms of the encyclopedia's consistency. 2005 (talk) 01:37, 24 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 --JForget 00:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taj Brown

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

Insufficient notability; promotional. A mid-level manager. — ERcheck (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No assertion of notability, and a lot of unreferenced spectacular claims. Dchall1 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unreferenced self-promotion. Biruitorul (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no references and no demonstration of notability --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no independent sources to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. There's a related article on Wylie Chen that also needs looking at. Same organisation: Children's Defense Fund. There are two users behind these articles: User:Revolutionarie and User:Blackpowerful. Neither have made any contributions other than to these two articles [11][12]. Suspect self promotion. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: While CDF is apparently a notable, nationwide organization, the two biographies seem to be related as to level of notability. — ERcheck (talk) 12:37, 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 delete. Coredesat 04:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manakin (DSpace)

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

Apparently non-notable software. Coppertwig (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, notability not asserted. Note: - FYI, no copyright info on that image, image should be speedy deleted as well. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
    Good catch. OK, I tagged the image db-imgcopyvio. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is not notable. Icestorm815 (talk) 18:59, 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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Product Information Management

Product Information Management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is a non-notable neologism, an extended article about someone's newly minted TLA. (Quote: The term PIM has only just recently come into currency. . .) The text is promotional in tone and vague and abstract to the point of evasiveness:

PIM systems generally need to support multiple geographic locations, multi-lingual data, and maintenance and modification of product information within a centralized catalog to provide consistently accurate information to multiple channels in a cost-effecitve manner.

This would appear to be intended to lend further currency to some sort of management consultant business by boosting the exposure of its TLA slogan. One reference is given, apparently to a German language publication. History indicates that it has required policing for vendor spam. (e.g. this edit) Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep - one tread slightly when deleting things that have 400,000+ raw google hits [13]. This one seems to be a real technical term. A slew of new data management terms like Customer Relationship Management have arisen in the past few years as applications have drastically changed in nature from standalone to software-on-demand. These are not neologisms but rather accepted terms for new kinds of software or approaches to providing software. This is clearly not a promotional or vanity piece. A quick trip through the googlesphere reveals that companies as diverse as IBM[14] and Oracle[15] consider it a class of software. There is a patent on an aspect of it,[16] and here is an article on the subject[17]. I have chosen these articles to disprove the claim that it is one company's self-promotion efforts, not to prove notability. The technical report already cited by the article does that, but if more must be found one can start with the articles in Information Week at the top of the 1,800+ google news stories on this subject.[18]. Wikidemo (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I hesitate to respond argumentatively; it always seems like filibustering. Because a "slew of new data management terms" have been invented and promoted, I am not certain that each of them is yet worthy of an article, even if they get some press - after all, folks are being paid to promote them, and in those sorts of cases I can justify taking a harder line.

    More importantly, assuming for the sake of argument that we should have an article on this subject, is this article the one we should have? As I noted, I found the prose vague and abstract to the point of unintelligibility, as well as inappropriate in tone. (I found this article by Google searching for instances of the phrase "management solution" here; that seemed to be a fairly reliable indicator of spam, and calling a commercial product a "solution" is advertising style that's an inherent violation of WP:NPOV.) All that I could gather from the article is that it seemed to have to do with the automated updating of product information in catalogues. If this is truly a notable TLA, I could surely live with a stub about it; but I'd hesitate to try and redact such a stub out of the text we have now. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not just some random paid-for press, this is 400,000 google hits for a real business term describing a distinct phenomenon, including vast numbers of substantive mentions in major reliable sources. The way to deal with weak articles is to improve them, not delete them. If there's enough material for a stub we should have a stub. However, it's not nearly that bad. A proper edit would probably reduce the article length by half. Wikidemo (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with WD. It seems to be noticed, and we should be there to help our readers understand the concept. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - does the text we have there achieve that result? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a question which is not relevant to an AfD. Poor quality is not a reason to delete a topic. I'm not an expert on the subject so I have no answer. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete A market study is not a Reliable source for notability, nor is a patent . so we have oine article and a liot of uses in various company;s ads on the web. I doubt any of it supports the actual article. DGG (talk) 08:12, 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 keep, should have been speedily kept when withdrawn as the one delete argument doesn't appear significant. Coredesat 04:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caitlin Upton

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

This article is the epitome of flash-in-the-pan 'notability'; the girl in question's only claim to fame is giving a dumb answer to a question in a beauty pageant, which was briefly a popular video on YouTube. I'm not sure if she was ever notable in the first place, but even if she was, her 15 minutes ended a long time ago. Being Teen South Carolina USA is not by itself grounds for notability, and the 'story' here has no long-term significance whatsoever. Nomination withdrawn. Terraxos (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable for a dumb answer. I don't think that Upton appreciates the ridicule of the "famous response" section either. Malinaccier (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sure, there are some decent sources, but her 15 minutes of fame are up (see WP:BLP1E). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to pass WP:RS although the criticism should be removed. I didn't catch the Trump agency association on first glance of the article; it would seem that she is indeed notable for more than just one thing. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:BLP1E applies to private and "low profile" individuals. A model for national magazines (and now modeling for Donald Trump's agency) and someone who wins Miss Teen South Carolina and willingly participates in a nationally televised pageant is in no manner "private" or "low profile".--Oakshade (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Besides being the subject of mulitiple independent secondary sources that are primarily about this person, the core criterion of both WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY, she has over 19 million youtube views (the 28th most viewed video of all time) and is a multiple national magazine model. That she's now modeling for Donald Trump's agency made national headlines. The modeling is outside the "dumb answer" and far beyond "15 minutes." --Oakshade (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Oakshade and TenPoundHammer, above. If there are BLP problems they can be fixed and do not overwhelm the article. The fact that she did give a famously dumb answer to a question in a beauty pageant was broadcast around the world and continues to be, and is well covered in all major media, so noting that fact here is not unfair. Wikidemo (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see the problem. She meets WP:N and BIO. If there is a BLP issue, edit the article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the previous AfD covered all these issues. The amount of coverage of this person indicate she's notable and doesn't fall under WP:BLP1E, and that was the consensus before and there's no new reason in this nomination. Mangojuicetalk 05:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. More coverage here than it needs. The existing reference in the Miss Teen USA 2007 article is more than adequate, and is all this subject needs or deserves.--Plane nutz (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Personal testimony: I just came upon a reference to Caitlin Upton's "incomprehensible answer" at the pagent—I didn't know what this was, so the first place I came to find out was here, and of course WP had the answer. This demonstrates: 1. the usefulness of this article, and 2. that her noteriety is not just "a flash in the pan" since she still in the news today. Additionally, the nominator has not specified what WP:N criteria are not met. Yilloslime (t) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the vast consensus here is that she meets notability requirements, I'll withdraw my nomination. (I admit my reasons for supporting deletion here were probably based more on WP:IDONTLIKEIT than on any real policy dispute.) Terraxos (talk) 06:16, 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 delete. Singularity 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unisys Agile Business Suite

Unisys Agile Business Suite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is an article that doesn't provide enough context for the reader. Also, this article doesn't do a good job of asserting its notability as well. Icestorm815 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. This will provide many benefits to the clients. . . Promotional article about non-consumer software, no showing of notability per WP:CORP. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree it is Promotional. Only source is a self-reference. Cirt (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete No nontrivial coverage found, borders on a G11 speedy. Blueboy96 20:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete apprears to be advertising material, with independent references.-- danntm T C 22:17, 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 delete pending references to substantial, reliable, third-party coverage. Sandstein (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telelogic Synergy

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Telelogic Synergy
Telelogic Synergy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This article is about a commercial software package that makes no showing of notability per WP:CORP. No independent references are given; the link given is to a "Telelogic Download" page that apparently requires payment and registration to actually view. The article's text is vague and abstract to the point of evasiveness:

Telelogic Synergy is a suite of tools for task-based Change Management and Configuration Management. Synergy provides lifecycle control for a company's digital assets (i.e. source code), enabling the assessment and authorization of change requests, from both internal and external sources, using a customizable change control workflow.

— and as such gives little concrete information as to what this package actually does. Does not appear to be a product with wide consumer interest of a sort that would generate truly independent reviews. The article seems promotional in intent; historical versions were even worse. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It's a combination revision control, software configuration management, change request, and change control system. As our software configuration management article notes, this field is replete both with buzzwords and with companies that like to redefine the buzzwords to their own ends. So yes, it's difficult to pin down what those actually mean. I could tell you from firsthand experience, since I've actually used the product myself, but I couldn't point to a source that you could check what I tell you against, since everything that I've learned is a product either of my own direct use and experimentation or of unrecorded verbal communication with sales representatives. Taking the word of a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor is not how Wikipedia works.

    Telelogic is in the process of being bought by IBM, and there is speculation that this product (as Telelogic's other products) will not exist soon, in favour of Rational ClearCase — something that our article on the company could probably be expanded with. I've never seen any books on the subject of this product, but it has been discussed in articles such as this. I am, however, unable to find much else, that actually talks about the product rather than the company, that isn't a Telelogic-written white paper or a Telelogic press release touting itself and its products, and that thus is an independent source using which a neutral article can be written about the product rather than the company. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 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 Speedy delete by User:Keilana as vandalism, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greedy fucks

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

Article was created solely for vandalism Ryon (talk) 17:05, 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→University of Dhaka --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dhaka University Ground

Dhaka University Ground (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems Twinkle didn't complete the nomination for User: NAHID, so I'm completing it. I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Reason Non-notable sports - venue. Moreover, this entry is unsourced and Google hits does not provide adequate information on this topic.--NAHID 17:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to University of Dhaka. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge In the days before ICC Trophy this ground used be one of the most happening cricket grounds in Dhaka. MCC, Allahabad XI and Indian President's XI have gone there and played one day matches. From Asharful to Lipu, many giants of pre-Test playing Bangladesh cricket were borne on that ground. It hardly is non-notable sports venue . But, that was all pre-internet happening, and google wouldn't return any hit for this poorly documented ground. Therefore, it may be merged to Dhaka University till someone dredges up some solid info, cited properly. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to University of Dhaka. Surely there must be a couple sources out there to add this to the larger article. Cirt (talk) 18:14, 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 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joint fasciitis

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

Unreferenced article, no references available via google, possible hoax. Prod was contested by a third party. Shunpiker (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, agree with nom, unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete or redirect. I'm not 100% convinced it's a hoax. The lack of ghits caused me to place the original prod, but after some research, I think it's equally likely that the author was refering to Necrotizing fasciitis -- a redirect to that article might be in order.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I removed the prod and that's what I thought, too. It's either a) a hoax or b) the article simply isn't triggering Ghits because the name's not quite right. I tagged it for Wikiproject Medicine in the hopes that someone there might shed some light. I'll replace the hoax tag with an expert needed tag in the meantime. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would support a redirect to Necrotizing fasciitis if there is a reference to support that "Joint faciitis" is a synonym in use for that condition. But the image that was initially provided for this article along with the unsourced statistics incline me to suspect a hoax. -- Shunpiker (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think to check that. I see the image has now been deleted but its file name does not fill me with confidence. Perhaps after the big storm here on the east coast (of North America) someone with a medical background will weight in and answer whether this is valid as a redirect or not. It's becoming clearer to me that you were right all along about this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Question: Is there any evidence to confirm that this is an accepted alias for necrotizing fasciitis? There's no question that necrotizing fasciitis is real, but at this point any connection between "joint fasciitis" and necrotizing fasciitis is speculative. If "joint fasciitis" is an original name for a real condition, it seems to me that the correct action would be to delete. Otherwise we set a precedent for the proliferation of imaginative names for diseases. -- Shunpiker (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I've left a request for help over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If anyone with expert knowledge joins in with a countering view, I'll consider changing my mind, but my vote is now delete. I think this has gone on long enough. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • PubMed gives no hits for "Joint fasciitis", suggesting that it's not a specific condition of fasciitis worth giving separate attention. The fascia does include joint capsules and such, but the article's description is unsourced and sounds similar to necrotizing fasciitis. I'd suggest deleting it, but a redirect to necrotizing fasciitis or just fasciitis would be okay. — Scientizzle 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is a neologism. From the present text of the page the author must be referring to septic arthritis. There is no fascia in joints, so it is impossible to get fasciitis in joints. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 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 speedy delete, CSD A3. east.718 at 22:58, December 16, 2007

[edit] 2006 U.S. Open - Women's Wheelchair Doubles

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/2006 U.S. Open - Women's Wheelchair Doubles
2006 U.S. Open - Women's Wheelchair Doubles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This template is still not completed, despite being prod'ed over a year ago. If no one is going to do it, it should just be deleted and the backlinks removed. After Midnight 0001 16:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment You could always look the information up and fill it in yourself. Nick mallory (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, serves no purpose, no useful information contained within for a long time. Unsourced. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete per Cirt and just plain unnessacary Mr Senseless (talk) 20:06, 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 both. Singularity 03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Junior Varsity Magazine

Junior Varsity Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
The New Power Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - related article added by Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

New magazine begun in 2007. Its only assertion of near-notability, being Mississippi's only magazine in that niche, is not supported with an independent source. The entire article cites no independent sources, for that matter. The article fails notability and verifiability criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As original nominator, I also endorse the deletion of The New Power Magazine, added by Ten Pound Hammer, on reasoning similar to that for Junior Varsity Magazine. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It doesn't look notable to me and neither do any of the author's other articles:
Anthony Colom
The New Power Magazine
--DanielRigal (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with everything said by the nom. Cirt (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete both, non-notable magazines, both claim to be the "only" magazine in their niches but no sources can verify that claim. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, lack of notability. If you read the fist draft that was posted, it says that there was only one issue published in 2007, and it is "slated for re-release in February 2008," which was why I "prod"ded it. --Dawn bard (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Both NN, no independent sources, promotional, etc... Mr Senseless (talk) 20:07, 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. Review of the article against the version from the prior AfD reveals they are substantially similar. With no new sources, this meets speedy deletion criterion G4. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rotard

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

Appears to be a neologism. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:14, 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. DS (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chow Wei Nien

Chow Wei Nien (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Either a hoax article (editor who created has been blocked in past, Google search on "supermodel" wife yields no hits whatsoever, Google search on "Super Chow" plus "football" yields nothing relevant) or an article about a non-notable individual. No sources, of course. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Let me see... He was born in Malaysia and was the brother of Chow Yun Fat (of Hard Boiled and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon fame), who never lived in Malaysia... not a single Google hit either... must be a hoax. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 15:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per all of the above. Unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete, Blanchardb's evidence suggests that this a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. On top of everything else, the alleged full-professional football club he played for has no article. I smell a hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Come on! A kid named "Chow Chow Chow"? Stinks of a hoax. Blueboy96 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's a Perak FA - the fact that the author of this article didn't even get the team name right just adds to the hoaxiness. Tonywalton Talk 18:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Hoax Mr Senseless (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Chow Yun Fat? This is likely to be a hoax. PrestonH 23:20, 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 then Redirect→Jainism: The initial deletion is to cover the possibility this is a copyvio; based on input below, it might be necessary to delete-and-salt at some future time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jainism and Terapanth

Jainism and Terapanth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Oddly formatted, unsourced POV fork of Jainism. Redirects to the latter keep getting reverted by the author. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 14:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, from the looks of it, appears to be a copyvio from another website. At the very least, it's unsourced OR. Cirt (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Redirect - per nominator. I was in quite a few edit conflicts with editors on the page before, and unfortunately, I couldn't restore the removal of the redirects. Rt. 16:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jainism, which already covers this subject in more detail and more neutrally, and which links to Terapanth to cover those sects. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is an effort and I am ready to edit anything not feels relevant. Please suggest me instead of deleting the article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happygod13 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

An article about Jainism already exists. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is Ok then I might edit it but to describe some things on Jainism and terapanth this introduction was necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happygod13 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 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 delete. Nearly all participants agree that the current content is a WP:OR essay. This deletion does not preclude a well-sourced rewrite of an article with this title. Sandstein (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software compatibility

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

Removed prod as author objected, so I moved it here.

Seems to be too vague and nebulous to be an article.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a directory. Dougie WII (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, agree with nom. Article is unsourced, WP:OR. Could be merged to other relevant articles, but then again, shouldn't be, as it's unsourced OR. Cirt (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep with relevant cleanup tags. This has always been a major issue with software, so much that the topic does warrant a sepatate article. I agree, however, that the article in its current state is junk. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 15:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable as the main section is List of known incompatibilities, which is sure to start off a flamewar of people who disagree and calling each other r-tards. Too subjective, lends itself more to a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Pharmboy (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can explain how this could become a useful article. Barrylb (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • First of all, the list of known incompatibilities is unmaintainable. That's a given. Let's scrap that one and give just a summary of notable incompatibilities, expansion of which should then be discouraged. Now, you ask, how can this article become useful? The article should state how compatibility is a major issue and a major pain in the ass for software developpers, and the measures they are taking to make sure they do not release software that contains bugs that are due to incompatibility with otherwise unrelated other products. Alpha testing, beta testing, even gamma testing, and all the other steps in-between. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - I really don't see a space where a useful article can exist here between a simple dictionary definition (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary) and a totally unwieldy, unmaintainable article documenting each and every way software can be incompatible via Microprocessor, endianness, computer language, operating system, etc. differences on a myriad of esoteric technical varying levels. --- Dougie WII (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment How do you define "notable incompatibility"? Nothing but arguements could ever come of that section, regardless of how you try to limit it, and the net result would still be Original Research and fairly useless. As long as there is any list in the article, there is no way the article could stand. Pharmboy (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Legitimate topic, with that being said needs to be completely rewritten. In its present form, article is vague and unclear. If this can't be expanded beyond a dictionary definition, then perhaps sending it to wiktionary might be the way to go. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I was the original PRODder for this article. After discussing it with the original author, we concluded that the list is unwieldy, and any additions would probably be original research. I may be wrong, but in my experience, there aren't a great deal of sources discussing incompatibility. Besides that, as others have stated, the only compromise between a simple dictionary definition and an unmaintainable, unstable article, is an incomplete article without structure. Jame§ugrono 09:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the original author. I'd rather see this developed into something useful, and others who have a real knowledge of these matters contribute, rather than have the article abandoned. I am not sure that all of those who oppose keeping the article really understand the significance of many of the issues of which can arise because of incompatibilities in software systems. These can be a headache both for developers and end users. However they can also be used as a weapon by companies trying to gain a commercial advantage. I am trying to improve the article, and hope that others will pitch in. I will try to provide a reference for the comment about the replacement of the Fourier transform routines by DFT routines - I think it's probably due to Kuhn and Tooley, and will be documented in articles about numerical computation. In any case, it is indisputable that DFT routines work very much faster than the original methods which were used in the 1970s etc. I would be willing to work with others, such as BlanchardB, who also seems to believe that this is a significant topic for development. The comment by James Ugrono suggests that I agree with his proposal for deletion. I certainly do not. I do agree that maintaining a list of possibly incompatible software would be contentious, and should not be attempted. Whether it would ever be legitimate to have a short list of known major problem incompatibilities is something which could be left open, and not attempted now. David Martland (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I voted Delete above but I'm willing to give it a chance. If we were to proceed with an article, I would include mention of Forward compatibility. Include a section on how software compatibility is best achieved (eg standards, protocols). The competitive advantage is interesting angle. The language of the article will need to improve: statements like "Compatibility is really a major issue because..." aren't in the formal language required for an encyclopedia. I would like to know if there are any academic papers on the topic to help develop the article. Barrylb (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. Essay. The text is free style narrative, the example is gross oversimplification, the section how one software library may replace another is completely off topic. The article doesn't mention techniques used to ensure compatibility (which are many and some quite sophisticated, ISO/ANSI/etc standards being one example). The topic is often covered in ACM and IEEE publications. I suggest to keep only one article (compatibility or incompatibility) based (or requested by some tags to be based) on on existing body of scholar research. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:10, 21 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 04:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top Shelf 8/8/88 (album)

Top Shelf 8/8/88 (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A curious situation. I don't have access to the NYT report but certainly the existence of the studio appears to fail WP:V. The page has now been converted to one on the album but there is no evidence that this album is notable. Delete. TerriersFan (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, The New York Times source does check out, but that was the only source I was able to find. Notability not established. Cirt (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Strong Keep This is a notable album just because of all the famous names on it, but an even more notable place because its existence is in question. The idea of someone making an album and pretending to be from another time is totally novel and interesting and this article should stay in for that reason tooCosprings (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - sorry, you've lost me. This album hasn't been charted; it hasn't, so far as I can see, been favourably reviewed by a notable publication so how does it meet WP:MUSIC? Having big names on it isn't enough - it needs to be notable as an album. We have many hoaxes on Wikipedia and we delete them not give them a place as a clever hoax - how is this different? TerriersFan (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable, never heard of it. Can't find anything of it on the net either even though likes of Juice Crew appear on them according to the trakklisting. --Flesh-n-Bone 18:53, 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. Singularity 03:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mehdi Jazayeri

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

Delete - No encyclopedic notability proved with a single reference. Stercorariuscyaneusparvulacataphractus (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. A quick search demonstrated that he is a respected and well-published academic. The article could do with more references, but is otherwise ok as a stub.--Michig (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Michig (talk · contribs), in addition to sources in the article, I also did a quick search and found plenty of potential good sources. Cirt (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Founding dean of a new faculty at a major Swiss University?? Keep, it's snowing.--Crusio (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep After looking at references, this appears to satisfy BIO --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:18, 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 per WP:SNOW as a hoax. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karol Wojciechowski

Karol Wojciechowski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - No encyclopedic notability proved. No reference is given which can prove its notability. Stercorariuscyaneusparvulacataphractus (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a hoax. If he had been appointed manager of Korona Kielce I would have expected the club to have announced it on their web site. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:18, 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 --JForget 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The X Factor (Kazakhstan)

The X Factor (Kazakhstan) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Little or no content, information could be added to the general X Factor TV series article, until there is enough information for the Kazakhstan version to branch out on its own. EJF (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Almost no content, no sources. STORMTRACKER 94 12:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above. Shoessss |  Chat  13:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above; no content, even after scheduled date for premiere of the show Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with all of the above. Cirt (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Speedy delete, A1 and redirect to The X Factor. Blueboy96 15:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: it should probably be deleted, although I'd like to see it expanded by someone who knows about the subject to give more information. If redirected, it should point to The X Factor (TV series). anemone│projectors 17:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't even meet WP:V. RMHED (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - practically no content, completely non-notable and doesn't meet WP:V. Mh29255 talk Mh29255 05:03, 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 delete. Coredesat 04:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asymmetric binary system

Asymmetric binary system (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

All original research, no assertion that this has been peer reviewed or acknowledged by anyone apart from the article's author. -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep – At this point, based on the references found here, [19] [20]. I admit it looks like original research, but until someone with more knowledge in this field comments I am inclined to Keep . Shoessss |  Chat  13:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Please be more specific. I looked through the Google results you refer to, and all references seem to be either about a chemical system or binary systems in astronomy. The article under discussion is about a compression algorithm. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You don't appear to have noticed that your Google Web search turns up (a) Wikipedia mirrors, and (b) articles written by Jarek Duda or people whom Duda has sent this idea to, often citing this very Wikipedia article as a source. Wikipedia cannot be its own source. Also note that this article, like Chiral life concept (AfD discussion), is Jarek Duda, as Jarek Duda (talk · contribs), abusing Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance for documenting xyr ideas, contrary to our Wikipedia:No original research policy. None of the things turned up by your Google Scholar search have anything to do with what is discussed in this article. Read them. They are simply talking about asymmetric binary mixtures in chemistry and binary systems in astronomy. One has to actually read the things that Google searches turn up in order to do research. Uncle G (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment – One DID read the search results, as I stated it, may be original research. However, I do not have the knowledge, expertise or qualifications to make that assertion. Regarding the article itself, which I also read, I found that it was explaining the method of Asymmetric binary system and how it is formulated, which as you put it; “….mixtures in chemistry and binary systems in astronomy.” , could be applied. Hence my Keep which I still stand on Shoessss |  Chat  14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Huh? Are you saying that your Google search turned up a peer-reviewed article that discusses the same concept (coding system / compression algorithm) as the Wikipedia article? Which article may that be then? Or are you saying that the Wikipedia article actually discusses binary systems in the chemical or astronomical sense? Or are you saying that you find some papers discussing asymmetric binary systems and that, as far as you know, they may be about the same thing as the Wikipedia article, and you say "keep" because of that? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes- is there a problem with that. Shoessss |  Chat  23:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Mixtures in chemistry and binary systems in astronomy have nothing at all to do with each other, let alone with what this article purports to discuss. One has only to read the articles themselves to see this. Please read the articles. Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR per nom. and Uncle G. JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no peer-reviewed references exist, as the author confirms at the top of Talk:Asymmetric binary system. Even when the article submitted is published, it is not notable until the concept is discussed by others. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Maralia (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What's the problem? If does it work? Name? This morning has been finally put to publish the first compressor based on it fpaqa - it's great, patent-free alternative for arithmetic coding--Jarek Duda (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR As said above, it doesn't take much Googling to find, for instance here, that the author appears to be using Wikipedia (along with various forums) to promote his own paper. WP:SOAP applies. Even if it's the most brilliant compression system ever, it has no place here until a significant number of reliable third-party sources have reported it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added a section on implementation. --Matt Mahoney (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You are citing yourself as a source. Please review our Wikipedia:No original research policy. The places for publishing research and new ideas are journals, magazines, and books, just as the publications listed on the front page of the Department of Computer Science at Florida Institute of Technology all are. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Please come back when you've got a paper on this subject through a fact checking and peer review process and published. Please do not abuse Wikipedia to publish your own research. Wikipedia is not a place for doing an end run around the academic process. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are tertiary sources that come after academic publication. Uncle G (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Observe that Matt (see PAQ) was very skeptic about it 3 weeks ago. If You still don't believe that it works, You can download the source, check it, compile and test. --Jarek Duda (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
        • This is not about whether it works; that is completely irrelevant to the discussion here. As an unpublished and therefore unreviewed paper, this is original research that does not meet notability requirements. Maralia (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR, per nom. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All research does not has has to be published in journals. As per my understanding of Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia should not be the original source of new information without external citings. While, originally the page may not be having external ciings, I think the page now qualifies. Sachin Garg http://www.c10n.info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.135.146 (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC) — 122.162.135.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Not just any external citings are acceptable: only reliable third-party published sources. I suspect votes are being solicited on the data compression forum circuit. See current off-wiki discussion: [21]. If this is the case, note the above template - AFDs are not votes. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I understand Wikipedia policy and that this is not a vote. I agree that 'initially' this page was in violation of that policy. But as with all good ideas, this seems to have gained momentum and acceptance. I would also like to mention that this is not about an ideology, its about a mathematical algorithm, there is not much reason to abusively promote it. Wikipedia doesn't wants to be original source of new information, and with more external references it will not be. As for importance of the matter discussed on this page, check the FULL discussion that you mention http://groups.google.com/group/comp.compression/browse_frm/thread/fdc61014c8a3a971, most people there are 'notable'. Matt is the author of the 'best' compression algorithm till date, Mark Nelson (who initiated the discussion) is the author of the "The Data Compression Book", Thomas Richter is a member of JPEG committee. - Sachin Garg http://www.c10n.info
Wikipedia doesn't base its inclusion criteria on who originated an idea or has been discussing it; only whether it has been published in reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed journals. Google Groups and similar threads, blogs and personal websites don't count. Besides "Jarek Duda" "asymmetric binary system" gets 87 Google hits, and none of them in Scholar or Books. It simply isn't (yet) very notable outside what appears to be a very small pond. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Is wikipedia having a policy of "No recent research"? Yes, I agree that its new and not notable outside the small pool of people who know about this yet, but from a data compression perspective this algo seems interesting enough. If wikipedia needs it or not, thats for wikipedia to decide. - Sachin Garg http://www.c10n.info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.137.225 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reliable sources. Per nom. shoy 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • To me it seems like people are cooking up one reason after another. First it was "NOR", then Notability, then 'reliable sources'. Or maybe just I am reading too much into it. Sachin Garg http://www.c10n.info
  • Delete as original research, and per Uncle G. Edison (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. Captain panda 04:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. Even the discussion in the cited discussion group recognises this is OR. BenWilliamson (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR, Notability, as we use it, and WP:RS are all the same thing here: we are not a place to publish research before the journals (use ArXiv for that). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The lack of reliable sources indicates that this is probably original research. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:17, 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 delete. Coredesat 04:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexia Ashford (Veronica)

Alexia Ashford (Veronica) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In-universe, unreferenced crufty article on a relatively minor character of the Resident Evil universe. Furthermore, this is mostly a duplicate of a page previously contained at Alexia Ashford (Resident Evil) (now a redirect). Since the title of this page is an extremely unlikely redirect (I don't think even a hardcore RE fan would put this in as a search), it should just be deleted. JuJube (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep- Alexia is not a small character in the Resident Evil series, she is; a main villian, responsible for the creation of the T-Alexia virus and has a lot of history in the Resident Evil world, as is explained in the article . As too “crufty”, that is your personal opinion. As to the article being a duplicate, how can it be a duplicate when it contains much more information? As for the article never being searched, it is on the 2nd page of search results in google. If it is the article title that bothers you, it can be moved to Alexia Ashford (Resident Evil), as it is not currently in use. Original shteeve (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Meaningless. Wikipedia is almost always a top result in Google searches; the fact that it's a second page somewhat makes my case for me. The rest is up for discussion. You don't control whether people think it's meaningful or not. Anyway, that's all I'm gonna say about it. (ec: Alexia Ashford (Resident Evil) is actually in use, as a redirect; check the edit history for the original version that this article rips off of.) JuJube (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- It is a new article and is yet to receive hits, which is why it is on the second page. You also don’t control what people think about a page. Alexia Ashford (Resident Evil) is only in use as a re-direct and information from my page could be moved there. I notice that you also basically removed the article on Alexia that existed there originally, be redirecting it. Do you have a personal vendetta against the character? Original shteeve (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I should also add that it does not matter whether the article is searched for, as there is a main article link on Characters in Resident Evil Code: Veronica for users or fans who want more information than is provided there. The same can be said for other characters on the same page. Original shteeve (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Bickering aside, i think the article should be kept. I enjoyed reading the extra information. I think its hard to reference a game character as the reference is basically from the game itself, however if it is a problem you could request that it be done, or do it yourself. That way the article would not have to be deleted. As the OP is a new user, perhaps suggestions as to how the article could improved should be given. For example a 'see also' link could be added to the page to give it context. 88.211.120.214 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) — 88.211.120.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete, no notability established within the article. Any relevant info could be merged to Resident Evil Code: Veronica. Cirt (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment - Why has Original shteeve (talk · contribs) given two Keep comments? Cirt (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • I really cannot see what the problem is, i simply made an article giving more information on an important character in the game as there was not enough information in the section about her on Resident Evil Code: Veronica. You experienced users really need to lay off the new guys or you’re going to discourage people from posting. If you dont agree with it, fine, but dont argue for its deletion just because you dont feel it has "notability". I could find a million articles on here with less "notability" than this one Original shteeve (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no notability asserted outside of universe. Definitely heavy on the cruft too. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Article has notability, furthermore if it was merged with another page, other users would say that there was too much information for a summary and request that a main article be made. 88.211.120.126 (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Characters in Resident Evil Code: Veronica#Alexia Ashford - First of all, the tone of the article is not even proper for an encyclopedia. Secondly, its mostly in-universe plot summary. And finally, Alexia's role is already perfectly summarized in the mentioned article. Ergo, having a stand-alone article for her is pointless. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I would disagree with a redirect, as "Alexia Ashford (Veronica)" is not a likely search term. JuJube (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- I believe if many other games, TV shows, and anime have entire articles dedicated to one character, (Such as Cloud Strife, Tifa Lockheart, Aerith Gainsborough, Vincent Valentine, Sephiroth, or Gaia (Final Fantasy VII)) why can't a major character from Code Veronica get one? I do believe it need to be cleaned up quite a bit. I mean come on, it even is messy in the first line. (Alexia Ashford was the final boss (in fact final 3 bosses!)) Kenta (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:Plot. Ridernyc (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Too much cruft and too far in universe. Captain panda 04:11, 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 Delete --JForget 00:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Buckner

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

Possible hoax. The article is unreferenced and there are no obvious sources linking thr player and any of the clubs it is claimed he played for Nuttah (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No google hits for "Andy Buckner" Wanderers, neither in Google books. Looks like a hoax. Joshdboz (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No ghits, I really think this is a hoax. STORMTRACKER 94 12:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax - as a BW fan, I've never heard of him EJF (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Tonywalton Talk 13:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with all of the above. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete per above. —dima/talk/ 18:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Definite hoax. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:46, 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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Mosier

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

I am proposing this article for deletion as the subject is not, in the Wiki sense, notable. Minimal notability is asserted, and there are no sources given for what is asserted. The article claims an award (without any details) for a film called "Insanicycle" which gets no google hits. In other words, fails the Notability test of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Regards Springnuts (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Unsourced OR. Cirt (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep Variety of sources are on the internet, including http://lambiek.net/artists/m/mosier_andy.htm and http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=54239 the latter contains the artist's interview —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartoon-Fan (talk • contribs) 03:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article now shows references for claims of notability; non-sourced "Insanicycle" reference has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killyouse (talk • contribs) 01:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment on references. Not convinced. Three references are given, only two of which mention the subject of the article. The ref from the Tuscan weekly, where he was a staff member certainly fails the "independent of the subject" test. That leaves one - [[22]] - but this has no sources and may even be derivative from the Wikipedia article! I don't dismiss it entirely, but I am not convinced that we have a notable cartoonist here, maybe "only" a cartoonist. Springnuts (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment on references. I am new to Wikipedia and apologize if I am going about this incorrectly. I was acquainted with Andy Mosier in high school, and recall him winning an award for his film "Insanicycle". I removed the reference because it was not verifiable (i.e. nothing turned up in a Google search). I sent an email to CINE, the organization that issues the Cine Eagle Award and received confirmation today that Andy Mosier did indeed win this award in 1977. The letter is from Betsy Walters, Director of Competitions at CINE and reads in part "I can confirm that Andy Mosier received a CINE Eagle Award in 1977 for "Insanicycle." The film won in the Amateur-Youth division, and Mr. Mosier was credited as producer, director, screenwriter, editor, camera and sound." I believe the Cine Eagle Award is an example of a "significant recognized award" which further supports Andy Mosier's notability per the criteria listed for notable people. Google is an especially imperfect guage for notable accomplishments happening decades ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killyouse (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, based on the Lambiek entry. Hiding T 17:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, based on references above, he appears to be a notable and established comic artist. Lankiveil (talk) 00:50, 24 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 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tarita Virtue

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

Model, bit actress and "sexiest private investigator in America" falls just a bit short of WP:BIO. Also, likely COI issue, as the creator is Tvirtue, whose only edits are for this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep The Maxim (magazine) references check out and that seems notable enough. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep – Based on this search [23] which shows more than enough credible and verifiable sources. Shoessss |  Chat  13:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough for inclusion. Notability is both asserted and sourced. COI might apply, but that's an issue for editing and fixing the article, rather than deleting it. Rray (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, though the article has some major formatting/cleanup issues, sources check out. Agree w/ above comments. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment. Maxim is that big a deal? Hmmm...I gotta get out more. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Am I taking crazy pills? Tarita Virtue, the sexiest private investigator in America? Maxim as a credible source? Edited by Tvirtue? Good Lord! --Lockley (talk) 11:01, 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 delete. Coredesat 04:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cavalcade (parade)

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

Page created Feb 2007, and no development since then. No more than a dicdef (and was, for a day, tagged as such). Emeraude (talk) 10:37, 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 04:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Buses routes 628 and 688

London Buses routes 628 and 688 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a non notable bus route. Wikipedia is not a directory, it is not a guide and it certainly isn't a mirror for the London Transport website. London Transport is notable, but that does not mean that every product/service they offer is. I can find no coverage of this service that is not trivial and certainly none that would meet the requirements of WP:NOTE. Nuttah (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. STORMTRACKER 94 12:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I never have read a reason, good or bad, why a city's bus routes were considered to be encylopedic. Mandsford (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no notability established, no sources in independent publications used. Cirt (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. Not needed on Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What about the rest? List of bus routes in London. I think they should all go and the list. --Neon white (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nominate away, and we we'll climb aboard on the next stop. Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • The Tfl mirror comparison is spurious - There is information in the article not available on the Tfl site, additionally, any information on the Tfl site regarding the route pertains to current information only, out of date information is lost - wikipedia content is not treated the same way.
  • Establishing notability or sources - the article has existed for 1 month - it is a stub and requires expansion, it should be treated as such as per established WP norms, the article has not even been tagged before being nominated for deletion.
MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
All information in the article can be found on a timetabel and at Tfl site. The point the nominator made was that wikipedia isn't intended as a guide for London transport services. How are bus fare's encyclopedic? It seems like blatent advertising by a bus company using wikipedia to advertse their product. --Neon white (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect, not all the information in the article is available from Tfl or a timetable, if this was not the case I would not have said it. MickMacNee (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There is very little info in this article that is not available from transport for london and none of it is encyclopedic. --Neon white (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't look to be a really major route unless I'm wrong, nor it does not look to be a BRT/historic/very busy route - if it was one of three maybe the vote would be different.JForget 00:46, 21 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. Kurykh 04:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aditya Jha

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Aditya Jha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article lacks an assertion of notability beyond being the CEO of a company (although that was enough to save it from CSD-A7). Lots of sources, but they're pointing to the notability of the company rather than the CEO or are press releases. Previously tagged CSD-A7 by someone else (denied by me) then PRODded (by me) but PROD removed without comment.➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 10:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Note to closing admin: From editing patterns [24] [25] it would appear that 99.231.10.228 (talk · contribs), 144.36.24.64 (talk · contribs) and 207.236.183.18 (talk · contribs) are the same person. ➔ REDVEЯS is wearing a pointy red hat 09:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If youa re going to delete Aditya's profile, perhaps many other's shoudl be deleted too. For example, how this person any more notable than Aditya - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Johnson ? Redvers: I seems you really don't like Aditya and have something personal against him because now you are saying that the other people who added stuff are me. What a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.10.228 (talk • contribs)


  • Kindly let us know what is it exactly you are looking for. We see thousands of people on wikipedia who are no where as notable as Aditya listed but it seems you are having issues with his notability. The man is very successful and is doing so much to give back in genuine fashion and I think as one of his followers it would be good to have an entry on him in wikipedia so others can edit it as appropriate. I am not a wikipedia-expert so I might know the syntax well, but I sure thing that there is nothing wrong with the subject or the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.10.228 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - The Star comes closest to proving notability, although none of the notable stuff the guy has done is reproduced in the Wikipedia article itself. The POA Foundation bio is not a reliable source - it is a puff piece for Mr Jha. The YorkU article is a puff piece for his donation to York U. Ryerson U's page is a brief puff piece for the POA Foundation. I remain convinced that the Foundation and the companies he has founded may have some notability, whilst Mr Jha, by Wikipedia standards, does not. The Wikipedia article is currently an advert for him (and a not very good one, so short of information is it). ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 10:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Redvers (talk · contribs) assessment of the article and sources used. Cirt (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep. A Google News archive search reveals enough independent references to him as a businessman and a philanthropist. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I recently went to a conference of Aditya Jha's, where I had the privilege of hearing him talk (Street Smart vs. Book Smart). I was very inspired by him and whatever I heard about him from other people, was defilitely true. I am looking into writing an article about him for my University paper. I was doing some research and stumbled upon this article on Wikipedia. I'm quite surprised to see that people say he's not notable enough and have voted to delete a reference of him from this site. I have seen many articles about him printed in notable magazines/papers, such as the Star, MacLeans, CBC just to name a few. So, my suggestion would be to keep this page about Aditya Jha. Last of all, I really appreciate what you guys do on this site. It's a huge knowledgebase for all of us. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.183.18 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete president of a small company, popular business speaker no apparent publications--not notable.DGG (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. President of a multiple small companies - Software Company has over 50 people and the Candy company has over 170 people (formerly owned by Cadbury). He has other businesses around the world that employ other 100 or so people. His foundation has donated over a million dollars for education in Canada, India and Nepal [www.poafoundation.org] and he is raising $3 million of Unicef Canada's "Unite for Children, Unite Against Aids" campaign [26] [27]. He is an appointee of Government of Canada to a very important federal financial board [28] as well as appointed by Government of Ontario to a equally important business board where he sits along CEO of HP and GE [29]. A common peson DOESN"T get appointed to these board. He is invited by Federal and Provential politicians for consultation on various matters. [30]. He is helping a poor country like nepal fix its political system [31] and start initiatives such as a new university [32]. He frequently gets invited by Government of India for business and trade consultation [33] and is winner of Indo-Canadian Chamber of Commerce's Technology achievement award [34].—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.24.64 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - overall notability not established. --Mhking (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems reasonable enough to me to be included in Wikipedia. sikander (talk) 22:51, 21 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 --JForget 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meeshi

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

Disputed prod. Non-notable cocktail with zero ghits [35] and looks like WP:MADEUP to me. nancy (talk) 09:44, 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 04:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching

Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Clear-cut example of a POV-fork (from POV-disputed Purgatory) Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed. Lima (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep My action in moving the article Purgatory to Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching, which is how this article was created, may have been a little precipitous but it was, I believe, very necessary. The article is actually about the RC view of purgatory and contains huge amounts of RC doctrine and dogma quoted verbatim. It is very clearly written with teaching in mind rather than informing. IMHO this makes it necessary to rename the article correctly as Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching, which is what I did. This leaves the article Purgatory free for more general use describing, yes, RC teachings but also the many opposing views, plus ideas from other religions concerning purgatory-like afterlife periods/states, plus the modern and fairly widespead use of the word in a secular way. I don't know if this is a pov-fork or not but it would have the benefit of preventing the article Purgatory being over-run by the catholic viewpoint. In addition, I can't quite see why anyone would object to this new name ... Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching ... the only objection put to me, after I flagged my desire to see a move, was that it was like Jesus, in Christian teaching (or something similar Europe on planet earth) which clearly demonstrated a Roman Catholic claim to own the article. Abtract (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Note 1. If the decision is to delete, then something would need to be done to recapture the history and talk of the original Purgatory article which currently resides at Puragtory, RC teaching after the move.
    • Note 2. If the decision is keep then the current article Purgatory needs to be altered because it is simply a mirror of this one. My suggestion is that it is reverted back to the position just before the mirror was cut and pasted in, namely at this point [36]. Abtract (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Purgatory is part of Catholic belief and of absolutely no other belief. For instance, it is not part of Eastern Orthodox or of Lutheran belief. It follows that the only purgatory that can be dealt with is the purgatory of Catholic belief. There is no other. It was for this reason that the comparison was made between the article called "Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching" that Abtract created (by a move carried out against the express opposition of two editors and with no support from even one other editor) and a hypothetical article called "Europe on Planet Earth". (The other comparison that Abtract speaks of was not in fact made by anyone.) There is no other continent of Europe apart from that on Planet Earth. There is no purgatory apart from that in Catholic belief. Distinguishing between the Catholic purgatory and some other purgatory (what other?) is nothing else but creating a fork to enable a particular POV about the one purgatory to be put across. Lima (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It's just not true that Purgatory is only part of RC belief. Purgatory's nonexistence is a major part of Protestant beliefs, for example. Just because RC is the only modern religion to believe in the existence of Purgatory, that doesn't mean they're the only ones with an opinion on the subject-- and we treat all views equally. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
So the view that Purgatory (i.e. the purgatory of Catholic belief) does not exist needs an article of its own! If someone wants to write such an article, he should call it "Purgatory (non-existence)" and let the article on Purgatory be called "Purgatory". Protestant and Eastern Orthodox views on its non-existence are mentioned in an article on the only purgatory whose existence is affirmed by some and denied by others. Their views and the reasons on which they base their views do deserve to be mentioned in the article about the one and only purgatory. But writing an article on a purgatory that nobody believes in is surely nonsense. And writing a separate article on "Objections to (the one) Purgatory" is unnecessary: the objections can be part of the article on the concept. Lima (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment POV forks are allowed where the POV are irreconcilable, e.g. Islamic view of Jesus. Is that the case here? Is RC doctrine so much at variance with other viewpoints that it can't exist within the same article? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If this ends up getting kept, the name should be changed to something like Purgatory (Roman Catholicism) or something like that. JuJube (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with that suggestion. Abtract (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Parentheticals is how we usually do this sort of think. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (with conditions) – either keep Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching and merge Purgatory or visa verse. Both articles are nearly identical. Shoessss |  Chat  14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The articles only appear to be nearly identical because people copied the content of Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching into Purgatory when they proposed deletion. Prior to that, Purgatory did have its own distinct content. look in history and you'll see Purgatory had a different look to it. --14:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecmconroy (talk • contribs)
  • Keep for now. There's been widespread confusion about Purgatory, the RC doctrine, and Purgatory, the concept about which all Christian religions have an opinion. If having a page devoted just to the RC Doctrine will help matters, I'm inclined to keep it for now and see if it helps. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • delete -d'oh. Other denominations having a view on purgatory belongs as a separate section in the main purgatory article. Purgatory is mainly an RC concept, which other denominations then comment upon, so we don't need this tautological article title.Merkinsmum 22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The Problem: Let me explain some background here, and point out the problem with this entire process. There was originally one article called Purgatory. Some editors expressed their desire to split off material about groups that don’t believe in the express Catholic doctrine to another article, called Purgatory and world religions. This became an established status quo. Rather suddenly, an editor appeared stating he wished to change the article title to ‘Purgatory as taught by the Roman Catholic Church’. He found much opposition and little support. He decided to violate policy and move the article anyway, then going further and creating a new page entitled ‘Purgatory’ with content from the old ‘Purgatory and world religions’ page. What ensued was a major mess. All the edit histories are bungled. There is a vote over the move, which seems ex post facto, and which shows there is nothing like a consensus for it. Now the deletion issue has appeared. If we delete this article then I fear the history will be lost, and the mess will just get messier. Thus we cannot delete this article at the moment. First, we have to sort out the mess. Then, I totaly agree, we should delete this article and reconstitute the 'Purgatory' article as it was, which was mostly about Catholic doctrine. Ritterschaft (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • So perhaps it should be called Purgatory, Catholic doctrine. Abtract (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, along with Purgatory in world religions, back into Purgatory. Roman Catholic doctrine about purgatory is just the same whether you believe in it or not, therefore it's perfectly possible under WP:NPOV to describe what it states, as well as the stance of believers and non-believers, in one article. Looking at the history, I see the issue in part is that one/some editors feel that it needs a separate article to explain in detail because of the jargon (mortal and venial sin, etc). That really seems an argument for a collective editorial blitz on making that detail accessible, and there's plenty of room for liposuction of un-terse explanation and unnecessary detail, such as the huge verbatim quotes from The Catechism of the Catholic Church (see Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge material back into Purgatory, per Gordon's suggestion. Despite best intentions, the division functions as a POV fork. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete there's not enough material to justify a separate article about other Christian ideas of purgatory, and purgatory in other world religions is covered by Gehenna and similar articles, these just need to be mentioned with a link to those articles, not have entire sections duplicating info in another non-RC purgatory article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:17, 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 delete. Kurykh 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matias Munighini

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

-non-notable guitarist. No source outside band homepage, appears to be some POVs and other OR type stuff from the SPA that created it. PROD declined by creator, therefore submitting here for deletion Mbisanz (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing useful in the article except the fact that he's in the band, which is better mentioned in the band's article. No evidence found of significant coverage of Munighini himself.--Michig (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no notability established, no independent sources. Cirt (talk) 14:50, 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 04:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GetAmped

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

I've found nothing to satisfy the notability guidelines (WP:N) for this game; the usual sites like gameogre and IGN have nothing. Checked some asian sites (such as [37]) but again only directory entries and press releases. I don't think this one meets the notability threshold. Marasmusine (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - I'm usually the first to cite WP:BIAS, but in this case, I think Marasmusine is right. Not notable. User:Krator (t c) 12:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable MMORPG, nothing found on major gaming sites such as IGN. STORMTRACKER 94 13:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is part of Asiasoft And It has not been commerically released.116.14.185.118 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    ...then isn't that a reason to delete, or at least partially merge into Asiasoft or a summary of all their games? (per WP:CORP#Products and services) Marasmusine (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Though it is still on Open Beta, I've seen this page get edited and vandalized so many times that I'd have agree to delete this page and re-open during it's official release.Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.48.248 (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC) \
  • Comment It has been already commerically released. http://www.getampedsea.com/info/news/news_details.aspx?id=6\


.....I created this page 2 times,but the first time it got deleted..So sad to see all of my hard work gone in just one click.Paul 1953 (talk) 07:04, 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 delete, disregarding multiple keep arguments from same user. Coredesat 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Malakov

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

Article about a murder victim. While there are some sources, the article fails to establish the notability of the doctor or of the crime. It is also full of original research and speculation. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete This is a very painful story and the maintainer appears to be somebody who was close to the victim. I sincerely offer my sympathy and support, but I don't think this meets notability required for a Wikipedia article. I would suggest starting a web page as I realise that this type of work can be very healing when faced with such a tragedy. Also, if it were to stay on Wikipedia, I would encourage the use of <ref> tags with full citations for each source and then add a reflist tag at the end of the article. Such an article can be good for studies on matricide and child custody disputes. Daniel Santos (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. There isn't a sufficient number of sources, the page seems like an amalgamation of newspaper reports and maybe, even some original research. Rt. 12:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above comments. STORMTRACKER 94 13:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I originally considered "keep" because there seems to be more to this than the usual murder, with a lot of attention and coverage given to it, even by the standards of New York's tabloids. I agree with Santos, however, that the author appears to be someone close to the victim, and the feelings of grief, outrage, frustration, etc. color the entire article. Our sympathies to the author, who can save her or his work, and share it with others after it is deleted. Changing my opinion, with apologies to anyone who agreed with what I've just crossed out. Again, those who do not deem this to be something to include permanently in an encyclopedia should not be seen as indifferent to Dr. Malakov or his loved ones. Mandsford (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, I agree with Daniel Santos (talk · contribs) and Mandsford (talk · contribs). Does not seem notable for a Wikipedia article, and contains WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep Please, hold on there just a moment, gentle Wikipedian editors. Indeed I am the "maintainer" or author of this article so please allow me to comment and address some of the concerns mentioned above. I certainly welcome edits by others but so far they have not occurred. I would not be surprised if folks are actually frightened to get involved for fear of being identified by the criminal element involved and possibly ending up the target of their ire. Now, early this morning of Dec 16 2007, I went ahead and unilaterally deleted the "notability" tag on the main article, but did so after two weeks of waiting patiently there for someone to respond. No response to my original comments regarding notability had been forthcoming. Imagine my surprise when I idly checked the article the following afternoon only to find a flurry of activity here relating to AfD, i.e., "deletion." Was this simply a reaction to someone other than a "black-belt Wikipedia editor" deleting the notability tag? First of all, I am most definitely not acquainted with the victim or anyone directly affected or involved in the crime. I have taken an interest in this crime because of the highly unusual circumstances. Just for starters: How many other murders can you think of that have (a) involved two medical practitioners or (2) involved child custody matters? This murder in New York is not a run-of-the-mill event! There are many, many divorces and custody battles today; typically the mother is presumed to be the more suitable parent for custody purposes. An instance like this is a "man bites dog" story, since it seems to show the mother to be unstable and dangerous. Antisocial personality disorder is a very serious forensic-related psychiatric affliction which is very seldom diagnosed, and, should it be confirmed (as all data seem to show) that Dr. Borukhova is complicit in the murder of her ex-husband Daniel Malakov, this article will be an important source to inform those interested in learning more about it. (The manifest reason that antisocial personality disorder is so seldom diagnosed is that the conventional interactions between patients and psychiatrists occur in a context of the therapist sympathizing or empathizing with the patient, and patients suffering from antisocial personality disorder are extremely adept at concealing their true aggression; in effect, they mislead their medical providers.) I do agree that the article contains excessive extraneous information about the particular immigrant community - which I dug up out of interest for background purposes and specifically because the article should not merely be a compendium of news reports. I also dug up other information about these individuals using details such as the records of the medical institution where Dr. Borukhova completed a U.S. residency. It is relevant, I daresay, that the mother (Dr. Borukhova) did not attend college nor medical school in the U.S. at all whereas the father (Dr. Malakov) did. I suspect that there may be certain cultural aspects of life within this particular group that is relevant, e.g., the incredible degree of denial that Dr. Borukhova exhibited in resisting the court's order to share custody with the father, essentially from soon after birth, as stated within the article. So, let's fix the article, but do not - I suggest to you all who may not have thought much about the remarkable aspects of this case - deprive future researchers and other interested parties by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. As far as "bias" is concerned, all facts point to guilt on the part of the Borukhova clan, and the article simply reflects that while pointing out in several places that the evidence is circumstantial, that possibly another person in the Borukhova clan took action and not Dr. Mazoltuv Borukhova herself, etc. I have edited the main article to enhance the NPOV. Trygvielie (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - has potential, but would need work to be more NPOV, and if kept, definitely needs a currevent tag. Achromatic (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)\
  • Keep based on improvements by the author, Trygvielie. The circumstances-- New York, former Soviets, custody dispute and involvement of medical professionals-- are such that I won't be surprised if this ends up as a "True Crime" paperback. Lesser stories than this have made it into print, and the writing skills bar isn't set terribly high when it comes to a T.C. book. Good luck to Trygvie, who might be able to pitch this to a magazine or book publisher. You've got a unique idea, run with it. Mandsford (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (Keep) -- to continue my remarks in favor of this article, of course I would like to see the article stand in one form or another and that is why I put a fair amount of personal effort into collecting the data and checking web sources for additional information as well as maps of the area in question (Rego Park, NY). Mandsford has IMHO the right idea, namely, that this story is going to become more, not less, significant with time; not necessarily a blockbuster right away but eventually this is going to be part of some larger story or academic study and possibly will be of some modest importance to legal scholars as well as lawmakers. I don't see myself personally writing a screenplay or anything like that. This is a diversion for me and, obviously, I am able to spell more-or-less correctly, type fast, and occasionally turn a phrase and I do enjoy using those abilities and being able to see that my efforts will have some endurance on Wikipedia, long may it continue. Again, too, I emphasize that I have never ever met a Bukharan Jewish person (to my knowledge) though like many I know numerous Russian emigres and have a more than passing familiarity with the Jewish people and their fascinating history. My own family background does not include anyone from Russia and I have no special interest in that aspect of the story except for the fact that it seems to typify (as I had originally written and now I think largely if not completed excised) the insularity of numerous entrepreneurial immigrant populations who (because of that insularity) sometimes seem to view the United States as being populated by an assortment of naive "marks" ripe for being taken advantage of in numerous small business transactions. This particular crime is a story of immigrants, and as we search for meaning in this I would not neglect that the U.S. is widely felt to have a problem with excessive illegal immigration as has been endlessly debated in the media (and in the context of the presidential campaigns presently in progress). The fact that this story involves such a group but also medical/dental professionals who are granted an unusual degree of trust by society amounts to a cultural clash between their ethnic and professional identities. I mean, who would imagine that the internist they consult earnestly and in some real desperation to diagnose a complex set of e.g., gastrointestinal symptoms, might in reality be engaged in planning (allegedly at this point) to murder her ex-husband? There is another aspect of this affair which I've featured (but now edited it to become slightly more muted) and that is the fact of the woman as aggressor. It's not news when a presumedly testosterone-surging man tipping scales at twice or more the weight of his girlfriend or wife is accused of physical abuse, and the legal system has evolved to anticipate that in the case of all these "he-said-she-said" disputes it is more than likely that it is the man who has used dangerous force against the meek and life-giving woman. Indeed that is the reality by all accounts. But the genuine likelihood that statistically it is the man who is the aggressor has been converted into a presumption. Further as we see from all the recent cases in the news of woman teachers who sexually exploit their students (Mary Kay Letourneau, Debra Lafave, etc.) the natural bemusement and the reason why these stories attract viewers and sell newspapers is that there are many who wink knowingly -- and both of these women were IMHO quite fetching/attractive -- and do not accept these cases as evidence that the women were predatory as they would for role-reversal situations would a male teacher compromise the honor of a young woman student. But in these cases the teachers not only victimized the students (whose normal development was certainly altered, to say the least) but also their own husbands and families whose lives they upended and harmed. One sees from these two cases and other similar ones that presumedly nurturing womanhood can, in some isolated cases, conceal unbridled ambition and willingness to harm those who love them. But they are not necessarily "antisocial" clinically. Returning to the cases of out-and-out antisocial-personality-disorder women such as (it seems from the evidence to date) Dr. Borukhova and Kimes, and others -- whose names I cannot remember but have been reported in the media on various "specials" and ordinary reportage -- it is 100% clear that these women tend to get a free ride precisely because the genuine likelihood I mention above has become a presumption of innocence giving these antisocial personalities cover to carry out dastardly deeds as in the cases of Borukhova and Sante Kimes (who as far as I can tell certainly has no association with the Bukharan community but like Borukhova sought to corrupt her child and killed for advantage). I really just want people to be able to see these facts and refer to them as society unravels the oversimplification that has occurred as we as a society have, quite correctly, waged a war against domestic violence and abuse that has possibly gone too far in providing cover for women who themselves are abusers or worse. Notwithstanding all the aforementioned, I am quite interested in hearing (and I hope it comes out eventually) Dr. Borukhova's account of just why she felt Dr. Malakov was so abusive and dangerous to her well-being. Perhaps there is more intrigue yet to be discovered here, but my assumption through to this point is that Borukhova suffers from a psychiatric disorder that, as I have written above, is undiagnosed in society at large, tends to be unrecognized even by nominally sophisticated mental health professionals, and tends to be disbelieved in "he-said-she-said" accounts of confrontations because of the overwhelming statistical truth that indeed it is typically the man who is more dangerous than the woman. But when the woman harbors evil in her heart, we don't see the warning signs, for example, the 4-year period during which Dr. Borukhova schemed (again, by all accounts) to prevent Dr. Malakov from seeing his daughter. Hope this helps. Trygvielie (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Every murder gets newspaper coverage; that does not mean it should be enshrined forever in encyclopedias. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS because of a lack of notability beyond the usual flurry of coverage of a violent crime. Wikipedia is not "true crime archive." Edison (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
  • (Keep) Of course, my preference would be for others to put the time and attention to offer constructive suggestions to improve the Daniel Malakov article rather than scanning it superficially. I consider this entire discussion to be questionable; as I say the article was up for two weeks with a notability tag and no constructive action nor remarks posted on the discussion page. As soon as I removed the notability tag, the article was slapped with a deletion (AfD) tag. Be that as it may, however, WP:NOT#NEWS states

    Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial.

    This murder does not appear to be in the nature of a "true crime archive". Perhaps many would turn the page, considering the affair yet another tragic or sensationalistic murder exploited by the news media to attract eyeballs. That does not affect the genuine notability; notability is not a popularity contest and no one individual needs to consider every entry in encyclopedia to be interesting. The Malakov murder is not merely tabloid journalism. (It has been reported in The New York Times, which is not a tabloid) It manifestly does not meet the above-quoted qualification for deletion on the basis of WP:NOT#NEWS. Every encyclopedia (wikipedia) article is not going to be of interest to every reader, and I doubt that even a majority of readers will consider any given article to be of compelling interest at any given time. Hardcopy encyclopedias are full of arcane articles representing news items that became of lasting interest.

    Quite paradoxically, those who call for deletion of Daniel Malakov are judging it based on the standards of newsworthiness rather than on the intrinsic & underlying issues it raises that make - IMHO - it even more notable for an encyclopedia than for a newspaper Trygvielie (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (Keep) I can also comment on the argument advanced above referring to WP:OR

    This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and represent those sources accurately.

    There is no need for Daniel Malakov to include any opinions, experiences, or arguments. All the information necessary to convey the story and background of Daniel Malakov are readily available from primary reliable sources. Using Occam's razor I have indeed pared back the text of the originally verbose Daniel Malakov to avoid any opinion or even innuendo.Trygvielie (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable at present. We have deleted many more dramatic murder cases with much wider coverage. the speculations that it might become important as a paradigm are at present the OR/opinions of the WP editor. No prejudice against re-creation if it does become of notability outside the NYC area. Certainly the details of the police investigation are at this point a gross violation of BLP unless the man is convicted. He hasnt even been indicted at this point. Theentire section 5 is totally unjustifiable, and probably most of 3 and 4 also. DGG (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (Keep) IMHO to legitimately delete Daniel Malakov the condemning editors should formulate their response based on principles, i.e., respond to the contention that the notability of Daniel Malakov is not the murder per se,

    Notability_{Daniel~Malakov} \neq \left ( Notability_{murder} \right ).

    but is something like

    Notability_{Daniel~Malakov} = \left ( Notability_{murder} \land Notability_{medical~professionals} \land Notability_{custody~issues} \right ).

    (I do not know of a proper algebraic formalism for the Notability function, but one is clearly needed for Wikipedia to deal with these issues.) In response to comments posted by editor DGG, the news coverage (per Yahoo news search on Daniel Malakov) of ca. 50 articles extends well beyond New York City, to remote news outlets across the United States (California, Georgia) and internationally to Russia (two articles in Pravda). There is no essential relevance for Daniel Malakov of the identity or specific details of the life of Mikhail Mallayev (esp. given that he has not been proven guilty) and all the discussion of Mallayev could be edited out with little loss of relevance to the main article. An indictment of Mikhail Malleyev, though not the central point of interest, is imminent and widely covered in numerous news articles. Sections that are "unjustifiable" should be edited or removed, and ought not serve as the basis for rejection of the entire article.

    With respect to WP:BLP...

    Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

    ...there seems no danger that Wikipedia would become the primary vehicle for spreading information regarding Dr. Mazoltuv Borukhova nor Mr. Mikhail Mallayev since 50 news items have already been written and are widely available. As "maintainer" I accept the valid criticism that all information not widely reported should be redacted from Daniel Malakov but do not accept the somewhat novel contention (which of course is not supported by WP:BLP) that no information regarding a living person should be included in a Wikipedia article such as Daniel Malakov.

    With respect to WP:OR...

    Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and represent those sources accurately.

    Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

    ...as you will note I have inserted more and more references (a few each day) to Daniel Malakov and am in the process of removing any and all elements of speculation or interpretation (will take a day or two to complete in advance of the five-day deadline).

    The real question IMHO with respect to Daniel Malakov is not about WP:OR but about that which remains when Daniel Malakov is properly edited to excise any OR. I certainly admit that the version I first threw up was imperfect, but that should not be the issue. Rather the question (as I have put it above) is whether gentle Wikipedian editors are of a mind to throw babies out with bathwater. So to be fair, gentle editors, please address your fundamental concerns to the matter of the baby, and separately point out soiled bathwater that needs redaction. To do otherwise is to IMHO exceed widely accepted limits of courtesy and altruistic intent.Trygvielie (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (Keep) Note I have dramatically streamlined Daniel Malakov with IMHO little loss of impact. Please refer to Daniel Malakov. I believe I have addressed all the above editors' comments relating to WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:OR, and WP:BLP among others.Trygvielie (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (Keep) So the argument for keep vs. delete comes down to notability. Administrator DGG has raised the spectre of the notability of Daniel Malakov. Perusing the list of administrators, I see that administrator DGG has a hot hand with respect to deletion. As an administrator DGG can simply execute the deletion unilaterally. Is it then a foregone conclusion, that, whatever efforts I may make to convince Administrator DGG, the page will be deleted? Further, studying the various Wikipedia pages relating to deletion, I understand that notability is being used as a criterion for deletion but that this is not at all a clear criterion and that it is a cause of some concern. Many seem to believe that notability should not per se be a criterion for deletion. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments I read:

    Specialist topics are often not notable in the sense of being well known

    I.e., a subject like Daniel Malakov which was never intended to relate the sensationalistic aspects of the murder but rather the combination (as described above) of "highly entrusted medical professionals," "murder," and "custody battles" as a unique combination of interest to those studying the issues relating to custody battles in particular is likely to be excised, redacted from Wikipedia because Administrator DGG does not consider it notable. If so, I have learned my lesson that Wikipedia has a unique culture and that if one is to be rewarded with seeing one's article remain available for posterity, one must not run afoul of that culture.Trygvielie (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (Keep) Well, the original AfD tag is dated 7:28 UTC, 16 Dec 2007. It is now 21:20 UTC 20 Dec 2007. There has been no posting for nearly 24 hours from DGG or any other Wikipedia Administrator. DGG is the Wikipedia Administrator who both (1) questions the notability of Daniel Malakov and (2) has a prolific record of summarily dispatching Wikipedia pages to oblivion on that basis. I reckon 10 hours and 8 minutes remain for Daniel Malakov to remain on Wikipedia before it becomes eligible for deletion, at which point this record (I assume, perhaps incorrectly) will be expunged. I do not expect that Daniel Malakov has much of a chance given the "radio silence" that has ensued. I guess the satisfaction that a Wikipedia Adminstrator gets for the otherwise-thankless and time-consuming role he or she plays is being able to make decisions that editors like myself simply have to swallow. And so I will. I will swallow the disturbing deletion of Daniel Malakov, and users of the internet will lose the opportunity to easily acquire the facts of this unique murder story. For Wikipedia does, and seems likely to continue in the future to, function as the internet's reference of first resort enabling people of all walks to quickly come up-to-speed on a subject of interest to them, whether or not it is of interest to a Wikipedia Administrator who happen to be on AfD duty when it comes up on someone's radar. The fact that notability is so poorly defined, so subjective, yet is used as a criterion in AfD is now exposed - to my mind - as a birth defect in the Wikipedia model. The idea that unpaid Wikipedia Administrators can be entrusted to make arbitrary deletion decisions seems to be the Achilles' Heel of Wikipedia. For, Professional Wikipedia Administrators would be liable to lose their positions and therefore would be incentivized to develop and institutionalize objective criteria and processes for AfD proceedings. That a lack of objectivity is considered to be a feature (and not a bug) in Wikipedia calls into question the widely publicized study - proudly toted on Wikipedia introductory or FAQ pages - that Wikipedia is comparable to Encyclopedia Britannica in its accuracy. Well, nothing's perfect. I have archived this page, soon to be of blessed memory, for my own records.Trygvielie (talk) 21:41, 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 --JForget 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NFL Super Bowl History

NFL Super Bowl History (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

To me, clearly an unneeded and redundant article. I could be wrong; feel free to change my mind Tanthalas39 (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's redundant to List of Super Bowl champions. Perhaps could be reduced to a redirect to that article. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • contribs) 06:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I would imagine you are the author of the article. You just voted twice, and you changed my vote above to say 'needed'. I'd say this speaks for itself. Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary fork. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant. POV fork of Super Bowl. STORMTRACKER 94 13:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I can sympathize with Thegamingmaster, who has worked on this article and is now watching its almost certain deletion. Save your work to your hard drive, and note that while Wikipedia has "published" your article, not all of the publications stay here permanently. I encourage you to keep researching and writing. I suspect that you may be a fan who lives outside the United States. Anyway, there's an entire organization of us amateur writers who love pro football, which you can find at www.pfraforum.org (register a name to get on, no obligation or cost). When you look back on it, you'll see that this was not your best work, and that this consisted of three items (list of teams, won-lost records after 40 games, and "fun facts" from the 2000 game) that don't make for a good article. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, sources provided are not adequate, and any relevant info could be merged to other articles. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • I suppose you people are right, and this is just my first article. Thank you Mandsford, for helping me understand. Thegamingmaster (talk)
And yet, you still remove the AfD tag. It's pretty clear cut that the consensus is to remove it. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll add that if I've written anything that's mean, I apologize. Don't let anyone's comments, mine included, stop you from contributing to Wikipedia. You have the same right to be here as any of us. Mandsford (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
*Thank you. :)
  • Delete An obvious content fork. No redirect either--who's gonna search for "NFL Super Bowl History"? Blueboy96 14:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fork. -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 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. Notability is not inherited (or the other way round) but this now appears to have enough to fulfil WP:BIO. BLACKKITE 19:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Henry King

Charles Henry King (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete and merge with Gerald Ford - not independently notable per WP:BIO. Strothra (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - What's the harm - he was a president's grandfather & has been dead for 80 years. Afraid his enemies'll get you from the grave - or are you afraid this entry will waste valuable space on the tiny little itsy bitsy wee baby server wikipedia is run off of? 76.184.82.86 (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)— 76.184.82.86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Weak Keep. Not notable, and not to be confused with other Charles Henry Kings, such as the founder of King City, California, who may be sufficiently notable.--Michig (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC) I would only support keeping this if he can be shown to be notable in his own right, and the info from User:Americasroof should provide this when added to the article.--Michig (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Notability is clearer now.--Michig (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - may fail biographical guidelines. There is one source, which isn't even cited for the main purpose of the article, the fact that Charles is his "paternal father". Rt. 12:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge relevant info with Gerald Ford and Delete. Only notable for being Ford's grandfather, but some of this information could flesh out a longer introduction to Ford's family history. Joshdboz (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete with Gerald Ford, per Joshdboz. STORMTRACKER 94 13:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, per Joshdboz (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep - Ford was born in his home and Charles Henry King paid child support (in place of his Ford's biological father) for Ford until 1929. There was a lawsuit in which Ford's mother attempted to get a piece of his estate following his death. King might even be independently notable because of his banking and financial status in Nebraska. I found out all this after getting the book "Fathers of American Presidents" following the recent unsuccessful effort to delete Ford's biological father. I now know where to find the additional info on him (in Cannon's book on Ford's early years biography) and Ford's own autobiography. Unfortunately, I probably can't get it within the time of one of these afd debates. Americasroof (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Cameron's book is actually on print google. It notes that he founded a stage coach line between Omaha and Wyoming and that he was active in the expansion of the Burlington Railroad into Nebraska and that he had a net worth of $10 million in 1900 - making him one of the richest people in Nebraska. All of those items would qualify him for notability beyond "just" the Ford connection. Americasroof (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
And for good measure there's a whole bunch of good stuff on print.google including more details about the Kings and a story about how Ford's maternal grandparents had to flee Illinois themselves because of the disgrace of having a single-mother daughter (and Ford had yet a third name). But the articles on the maternal grandparents have already been deleted based on nominations by this nominator. When it comes to the ancestors of heads of states you really do have to use common sense. Ancestors of presidents will always have extensive articles written on them everywhere but apparently not on Wikipedia. Americasroof (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A building he built in Wyoming is on the National Register of Historic Places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americasroof (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
And for good measure according to rootsweb he is either a founder or early settler Riverton, Wyoming, Fort Fetterman, Douglas, Wyoming, Glenrock, Wyoming, Casper, Wyoming and Shoshoni, Wyoming. You're going to have to give me some time to get this article in shape. His name is all over the place in Wyoming history pages. Americasroof (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Significantly Updated - I have significantly updated the article per the above. I still want to do some more clean up but I hope I have established notability beyond Ford. Founding of several cities including Wyoming's second largest city should automatically make him notable. Americasroof (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Presidential notability does not travel backward through time to make all the president's ancestors notable as well. Edison (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Since WP:BIO is used as a justication. Here's the nutshell quote from the Page:
This page in a nutshell: A person is presumed to be notable enough for a standalone article if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent.
There are numerous extensive articles and books devoted to the man as a pioneer of Nebraska and Wyoming and founder of Casper, Wyoming so at that simple guideline he meets the Wikipedia standard of notability even if Ford was never even discussed. Comments on him should be directed to the whole revised article rather than trying to pick at an individual argument that was made before the extent of his influence on Nebraska and Wyoming was stated. Americasroof (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete He is not cited as a founder of Casper, Wyoming - nor is he prominently mentioned in the formation of any of the other cities you mention. In 1888, he opened a store in Casper, much like he did for many of the Wyoming towns along the Fremont, Elkhorn and Missouri Valley Railroad. So it all boils down to Charles Henry King being a savvy merchant, but being a clever at business doesn't make one notable in and of itself, nor does being a settler. The problem is that history mostly fails to record him except for his famous grandson, and that makes it difficult to keep this. Any other name and he would be just another merchant that struck while the iron was hot during the western expansion of the late 19th century. As the article stands, the sources and citations just aren't enough to establish notability outside of Gerald Ford. The promised sources that discuss King's prominence in Nebraska and his wealth may tilt the balance, though. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Credible Third Party Articles About Notability Beyond Ford - THe Casper Journal itself attributes a founding role to him in a lengthy article The Casper Journal article also notes that his bank was a predecssor of First Interstate Bank in Wyoming/Montana (and that one of his buildings is the site of the legendary Yellowstone Drug which is on the National Register of Historic Places.
James Cameron has extensive background in his biography
A Mary Wignent biography also deals extensively with his background
WP:BIO says you only need one published source to establish notability. I've just given you three major sources. His biography would have probably gone forever without any challenges on just his pioneering role in Wyoming but he is being penalized for his Gerald Ford connections. Americasroof (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Had he not been Gerald Ford's grandfather, its likely he would have never made it this far on Wikipedia, if he was chronicled at all. The Casper Journal article merely states that he had a store in Casper, but that was nothing new or interesting; merchants had been trading near Fort Caspar since it was founded in 1859. Casper isn't named after King nor did he hold any official offices, indeed the only time anybody sees fit to mention him in the same breath as Casper is to highlight Gerald Ford's connection to Wyoming. I'm not going to pass judgment on any of the other parts of his life - it seems that he may have some notability from his later days, and I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with the direct relatives of a president to be included in these pages, certainly we have no problem documenting royal families down to silly levels. But the guideline is clear - Charles Henry King needs to establish notability on his own beyond that of his famous grandson, and if it comes down to deciding if he was a notable pioneer of Wyoming, then I would have to say that he wasn't. Standing on his own this article would have probably been a snowball consensus to delete if it didn't get redirected and merged away first. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The article quoted by Zagaleo below is headlined A Wyoming Legend: Ford Family Includes Pioneer - Fresno Bee - December 1, 1974 focuses on Charles Henry King and even includes a photo of him. It likewise attributes founding of towns to him.
In addition to having a role in Casper he is also considered a major player in the establishment of communities in Fremont County, Wyoming including Riverton, Wyoming (one of his buildings in Fremont County is on the National Register of Historic Places. You can debate what "founding" means but establishing one of the first businesses in a community is certainly up there.
And of course there's the whole bank thing. The system of banks he founded were the forerunners of First Interstate Bancorp which is one of the biggest (perhaps the biggest) bank systems in Wyoming/Montana.
The sources also note that there's a substantial article on him:
A recent story in the "The Wind River Mountaineer," a quarterly history journal published by the Fremont County Museum Board, focused on the important role Charles Henry King played in the development of the city of Casper and with the opening of large parts of Fremont County for settlement at the beginning of the 20th century.
Quite I frankly I probably earlier would have offered only token opposition to the deletionist bandwagon on him. But in the debate (last week) to delete Ford's father, a book "Fathers of American Presidents" was quoted and I got a copy of it (yet another credible third party source!!!). The chapter on Leslie Lynch King listed Charles' accomplishments including the amazing tale that he had paid Ford's child support clear up to nearly his death and that there was a battle over his estate between King's son and Ford's mother.
WP:BIO has a very simple criteria for establishing notability -- credible third party articles. There are numerous books, newspaper articles and scholarly publications on King. There's sure a lot of people outside of Wikipedia who seem to think he's notable. Americasroof (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep sources exist, notability established. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think there's enough information available for an independent article. Charles Henry Ford seems to have been the primary subject of a 1974 article in the Fresno Bee Republic. (The Google News archive preview reads, "Charles Henry King, a pioneer businessman, was a legend in early Wyoming.") And from what I can glean, there's some additional info on him in the Summer 1987 issue of Nebraska History. (I found a newspaper article on Factiva {Fred Thomas. "Details in Nebraska History Magazine: Ford Knew Little of His Omaha Roots, Real Father". Omaha World-Herald. 20 July 1987.} that devotes a section to Charles Henry King and uses the journal article as a source.) Zagalejo^^^ 07:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Addendum I was able to access the article from the Fresno Bee Republic. The second paragraph reads, "Ford's elevation to the Presidency has been the talk of many of the Wyoming old-timers in Casper, Shoshoni, and Riverton. They still remember his father and his grandfather, possibly the wealthiest man in the state in his day." I'd say the bolded portion is a good claim to notability. Zagalejo^^^ 06:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep first, there are enough sources. Second, tho not all a presidents relatives are notable, I would extend it to his grandparents. Seems reasonable. People are interested in these things, they are verifiable. DGG (talk) 08:27, 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 Delete --JForget 00:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Adventures of Collin

The Adventures of Collin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about a comic that doesn;t seem to have any independent or online reviews or discussion. Only one ghit for the comic FlowerpotmaN·(t) 06:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Tonywalton Talk 11:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - There are no sources, and there is only one g-hit (but I'm not using that as my rationale). However, we could stubify the article, and then contact the article creator to maybe try and find some literary sources? Rt. 12:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 13:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with nom, unsourced WP:OR. Article could always be recreated later with adequate sourcing. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Speedy Delete, NN people/groups/content Mr Senseless (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. —dima/talk/ 22:00, 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 04:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erica Hardwick

Erica Hardwick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Erica Hoesch.
Hardwick was a minor figure in the American neo-Nazi movement. She subsequently had a change of heart and is now a minor figure in the anti-neo-Nazi movement. Her previous neo-Nazi friends have plenty of nasty things to say about. However I don't believe that there's never been an article or profile about her, and I'm not aware of any other claims to notabilty. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO, a non-notable political activist. STORMTRACKER 94 13:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with the nom, not to mention it's unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep I see what you did here. You took an old decently sized article then removed all information and references and now trying to nominate it for deletion. Fortunately I was around there when there was the first VfD and remember that this article used to be decently sized and decently sourced. Shame on you, Will Beback for trying to fool us all.  Grue  19:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Over a year ago I removed unsourced material,[38] as required by WP:BLP. The diff you provide is deceptive, as it hides the intermediate editing by an anon. Here is the correct diff for my second edit from that period:[39] As you can see I'm restoring material, not deleting it. I haven't made a significant edit to the article since then. I believe you are mistaken about the circumstances, and you haven't made any assertion about the notability of the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • When you restored the article, you restored a stub, and left out several other paragraphs. Immediately following (and I am not implying it is your responsibility to manage this), the same IP removed references. That we're now discussing the article as not being notable per WP:BIO when one of the primary qualifiers was deleted by a person who claimed to be the article subject and that this fact has not been weighed into consideration concerns me. Achromatic (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for acknowledging that you were wrong to accuse me of making the deletions. If there is some sourced material that asserts the subject's notability then please add it to the article. Right now there's nothing that does so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As per Grue, it is extremely difficult to Assume Good Faith when an editor summarily deletes large swathes of an article, and then says that the article is then not worthy of inclusion. Why, Will, if you felt the article was not-notable on its own merits, did you feel the need to delete 80%+ of it before proposing it as an AfD? Achromatic (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Please provide an honest diff showing me removing "80%" of the article. I believe you are mistaken. Regardless of editing, what is the notability of this subject? How does she meet WP:BIO? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Does this qualify? [40]? There were four edits in that time frame - 1) you reverting an unsourced addition (as indeed you should), 2) Erica (or someone purporting to be her) blanking the article and saying it's mostly incorrect, 3) you reverting and 'stubbifying' the article (I'm not sure on what grounds - though it could use citations), and 4) Erica (if we're going on the probability of the same IP in 24 hours that initially claimed to be her), deleting all references. As for notability, I think that it's interesting that a neo-nazi political activist went on to actively work against that same movement. I just don't know that the removal by an anon IP that deleted all secondary sources counts as "not notable" per WP:BIO's "Basic Criteria" - seems to me that that basic criteria could be met by simply reverting the removal of all references from the article, rather than a "WP:BIO Not Notable AfD". Achromatic (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
        • No, that doesn't qualify - that diff contains "3 intermediate edits". Those include a major deletions an anon claiming to be the purported subject, [41], a partial revert by me,[42], another deletion by the anon,[43], and a restoration by me of the categories.[44] None of those show me deleting material from the article. Thanks for admitting that you were incorrect to accuse me of deleting "80%" of the article. So specifically, how is this person notable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, technically, I didn't admit any such thing. Especially considering, if we want to really be pedantic on this, prior to edit 1 above, the body of the article was 780 words. That same article, following your "stubbifying" after "Erica" blanked it was 191 words. It wasn't 80%, it was 75%. My apologies. How is this person notable? By the tenets of WP:BIO "she has been the subjecof published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,3 and independent of the subject." See previous remark on references. As for "None of these show me deleting material from the article"? That's funny. In the revision immediately preceding the blanking by "Erica", the article contains EIGHT paragraphs. Your "revert" leaves the article containing ONE paragraph. If that material wasn't deleted in the course of your reversion, I'm at a loss as to where else it ended up. Achromatic (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
            • How can you accuse me of deleting "75%" of the article when I restored material that was deleted by another editor? That's just bizarre. As for the notability, when has she been the subject of published secondary source material? Being mentioned in an article isn't the same as being the subject of an article. She's been mentioned several times, but none of the mentions are significant nor do they assert notability otherwise. As I wrote at the top, she's a minor figure, not a notable individual. If you have any evidence of her notability please provide it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain it: Content is there. Content is blanked. You choose to restore only a fraction of it. That was your decision, and yours alone, and amounted to the removal of a large portion of the work. The user blanked the page, yes, they deleted it and you "reverted" and "stubbified", by which when you reverted it, you removed in the order of six hundred words. How is that not "deleting material"? Achromatic (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
                • Would you prefer it if I'd restored none of the material deleted by the anon/subject? You've read the article and haven't restored it either, so you're equally culpable for the "deletion". Why haven't you restored it, if it's so worthwhile? However this is all about something that happened a year ago. Do you have any evidence of the subject's notability? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
                  • From my response to your response to Grue: "(and I am not implying it is your responsibility to manage this)". You are correct, I have not restored this content either, because on the face of it, I am not necessarily convinced of notability, though as previously mentioned coverage by (among others) The Roanoke Times would appear to meet WP:BIO's 'basic criteria'. That, coupled with the general principle of "When in doubt, keep" re deletion lead to my vote for "Keep". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
                    • The Roanoke article establishes the notability of Bill White, who is the subject of the article. It doesn't establish the notability of the person who complained about him. When it comes to BLP, the policy is "if in doubt, leave it out." Right now the article doesn't have a single source, and only a couple of facts can be compiled from reliable sources that are in the revision history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This version of the article [45] shows that at one time it had enough references to make it a valid entry. Looks like the revisions need to be rolled back aways. Cla68 (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Did you actually look at those sources? Only three of them are reliable secondary sources, none of them is about the subject, and they don't mention 95% of the assertions in the article. How, exactly does this person meet WP:BIO? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-Will Beback is right about the references some of which don't mention her and one isn't even related to the subject whatsoever [46]. Google hasn't much non trivial sources with the top two straight from Wikipedia [47]. A non notable political activist.--Sandahl 19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - While on its surface this version looks salvageable, as Will points out, when you actually try to use those sources to verify notability, one comes up dry. She is not notable by a long shoot. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are no reliable, secondary sources in any of the versions I've looked at, so it seems it has always been a BLP violation. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I've found one, a local article about someone else, in which she's mentioned. [48] There would need to be secondary sources that she's the focus of, or at least more the focus of than this. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I see nothing notable about the subject, even withing the anti-racist movement. Other than being mentioned in some local papers, there seems to be nothing else special about the subject, or even particularly interesting, for that matter (and this is coming from someone in the anti-racist movement). --Mista-X (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable - reference in a small-town newspaper in an article about someone else isn't enough. SuperVideoGameKid (talk) 18:50, 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 keep after a rewrite. Sandstein (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spellborn

Spellborn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
The Chronicles of Spellborn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - prior AFD

an advertisement solely designed to engender pre-release interest in a commercial product, the sole concern of the editor logged-in specifically to plant this pre-edited text Wetman (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article has at least some outside sources and the game seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is clearly a commercial work and Wikimedia, funded by the people, does not exist as a form of free advertising. The article is clearly written and laid out to engender interest in the product. Daniel Santos (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. When the game comes into existence, even an alpha that gets reviewed, it can (and should) come back. For now it's just an ad. Hobit (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Cleanup removes ad issues, and IGN previews make it notable. Hobit (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tonywalton Talk 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, and as per advertisement. Lines like "Spellborn distinguishes itself from other MMORPGs" are unacceptable. Rt. 12:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep a simple Google search brings up significant 3rd party coverage from authoritative sources [49], [50], [51], [52]. This meets notability as well as verifiability. If it reads like an advert then that's for editors to improve. Joshdboz (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Wetman, your original discussion on the article's talk page assumed bad faith on the part of the original author. Even if there was a conflict-of-interest, that does not invalidate the notability of this game. Joshdboz (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The edit histories concerned speak for themselves. I made no assumptions, only deductions. --Wetman (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
"no assumptions, only deductions" - that's a little biased - from my review of the edit history, I don't see that the only possible conclusion to be drawn was that which you made. Certainly the article needs its own POV cleanup, but your claim of "deduction" is subjective at best, and not suitable for determining authorial intent. Achromatic (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 13:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I removed all the advertisements - I kindly ask the above editors to review their comments. This is currently a verifiable article about a notable subject, with no advertisements, and just as relevant as other upcoming games such as Dragon Age and StarCraft II. User:Krator (t c) 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Krator (talk · contribs) has done some DIFF good work on this article, and there is adequate sourcing. Cirt (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep Multiple reliable sources to pass and exceed notability requirements, it was an advert but now it isn't. Someone another (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
And rename to The Chronicles of Spellborn per SharkD. Someone another (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Krator (talk · contribs)'s rewrite, notability is clearly asserted through the reliable sources, and the promotional tone has been removed. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I just want to mention that other games (like Aion: Tower of Eternity or Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning) are not released as well, but still recieve significant coverage here at Wikipedia. The article I put up uses many 3rd party sites to underline noteability and creditability - the game has also been present and accessable at both GC Leizip and G-Star Korea (the E3 equivalent for Europe and Asia, respectively), but has recieved few English coverage on these events, thus I did use few sources from there, although you might check [53]. I don't want to start an advertisement / WP:VG/GL discussion here, but I'd be happy to see some posters over at my talk page after the AfD discussion has been resolved, because I don't agree with some assessments. Langeweile (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and should probably be a speedy. Prior afd should stand until the game is released; until then, only speculation, primary sources, and rephrasings of those primary sources exist. —Cryptic 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Krator, and rename to The Chronicles of Spellborn. SharkD (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article doesn't read like an advertisement to me. It has a couple of lines that could stand some editing, but it has references. Rray (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - there are some ropey looking references, but the IGN and Ten Ton Hammer coverage is enough to satisfy WP:N (which makes a change for one of our MMORPG articles!) Required cleanup can be done at our leisure. Marasmusine (talk) 20:02, 21 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 04:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Stried

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

An assistant in the sports departments of a university. Nothing terribly notable, very little referencing. Chatty, newsletter like article. IP address editor started working on the article after its creator stopped. CSD tags removed twice the IP editor, moving on to Articles for Deletion process. ArglebargleIV (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Does not appear noteworthy at all. Daniel Santos (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Head of a university sports department might be notable, but in mots cases probably isn't. An assistant is definitely not notable. Emeraude (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Tonywalton Talk 11:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above comments. STORMTRACKER 94 13:09, 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 --JForget 00:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unbroken (Israel Ochoa album)

Unbroken (Israel Ochoa album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Breathe (Israel Ochoa Album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Diligence (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Series of non-notable (possibly hoax) albums by a non-notable singer whose article was CSD'd in March 2007. Loaded with bogus references and reviews but nothing verifiable. A quick google search returns nothing of import (singer does have a MySpace page, however). Fails WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all as pure hoaxes (the bogus refs, that is); the MSPaint-ed album covers say it all. (I've tagged those images for speedy deletion as they're missing rationales.) Complete failure of WP:MUSIC no matter how you slice it. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all, per above. They are all unsourced OR, and could all be recreated at a later date if independent sources are provided. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Speedy Delete this is a blatant hoax that has been previously deleted. As such, the author should be blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user Afi0956 (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons above. As for the sockpuppetry, I'm stuck on the fence, having checked the article creator, Vicmm42 (talk · contribs), and the banned Afi0956 (talk · contribs). 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Not much of a question. This editor has the exact same editing pattern as that of Imino08 (talk · contribs), one of Afi0956's sockpuppets. JuJube (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Statement removed. But the delete vote stands. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Blatant hoaxes, false sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. STORMTRACKER 94 13:10, 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 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)

  • 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. Coredesat 04:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong City Mall

Hong Kong City Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not only is this page highly POV, it's also a mall that fails WP:RS, as a search for sources found none. Claims to be a popular tourist destination, but an online search proved otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with the nom. Unsourced OR. Cirt (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep - multiple RS provided (well 2 atleast, I admit 1 is iffy), it is a popular destination. POV I'll let you edit as its not grounds for deletion. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 13:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per discussions above. If deleted, the included template probably needs to be update to not link the malls that will not likely get articles. If the template is not updated, then we will be here again and again. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 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 no consensus. The article is reliably sourced, so no policy demands its removal. The argument that the availability of sources is limited by the subject's nationality is well-taken and difficult to rebut, given the interest of the encyclopedia in avoiding geographic bias. While the professor's notability is not clear for the discussion, consensus to delete does not exist, so keeping is the default outcome. Xoloz (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rafael E. López-Corvo

Rafael E. López-Corvo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete for lack of notability and lack of appropriate third party sources. A list of publications does not establish notability. A couple of reviews do not establish notability. Article has been created and maintained by single-purpose user. Doczilla (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I agree that the article needs some cleanup to tone down the promotional aspect, but he seems to be a relatively notable academic. Substantial body of work, some of which is cited by other academics, he has multiple books in both English and Spanish,[54] was part of the editorial board for a major journal, and he's a notable speaker at academic conferences.[55] I agree that the sources are a bit weak at the moment, but am willing to give some allowances since he was born in Venezuela. --Elonka 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have publications, I've been on an editorial board, and I've presented or co-presented nearly a hundred presentations at academic conferences. That's not sufficient. Insufficient concrete, verifiable information is presented regarding the notability of this work. I tried simply adding tags to nudge someone into adding information regarding notability, etc., but he/she won't let the tags remain in the article.Doczilla (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I can't really compare with you Doczilla, since I don't know who you are (though you're welcome to tell or email me, so I can look).  :) As for the tags though, I've added the article to my watchlist if you'd like to try again. Might also be worth posting about it at WP:COIN. --Elonka 03:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • very weak keep pending further investigation. The books reviews cited seem to be mere listings. I'm removing some of the spam, and we'll see what is left. Doczilla is right , that conference presentations in science and medicine are meaningless to notability--with the exception of peer-reviewed published conference proceedings in some fields of engineering and computer science. Nor is membership on an editorial board. But s/he is wrong about using oneself personally as a standard of notability. In any case, I've offered before also to try to write an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) December 8, 2007
  • I thought that exchanges between contributors, editors and administrators took place in the article's discussion page and not through tags that are immediately detrimental to the article and its subject. That's why I tried to remove Doczilla's tags, who in retaliation proposed the articles deletion. Although my contributions to the English wikipedia are very scarce, I'm not sure that Doczilla is right to state that I'm a single purpose user. I'm also curious to know why this article is more the focus of Doczilla's censorship than other ones I tried to draw to her/his attention (for instance, Manuel Isaías López). Lancet75 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Tags are useful tools, and editors work in different ways. Fighting about the tags was not productive; it would have been better to let them stand. It's not helpful to make this personal with Doczilla; D, like you, is trying to produce the best encyclopedia we can.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I must admit that fighting about the tags was not productive. Their vilifying effect on the article is there for everyone too see. At this stage I'm only seeking to better understand the edition process and editor's motivations. I would have thought of tags more as a last resort solution.Lancet75 (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. "Former associate professor, now in private practice" is a bad sign for passage of WP:PROF. Citation record in Google scholar is weak but I don't know whether that might be due to his field or language rather than a true sign of non-notability. Didn't turn up much in Google news. Basically, delete not because I'm convinced he's non-notable, but because nothing in the article and nothing I can find outside it convinces me he's notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Following this discussion is instructing to me about editor's notability criteria. When creating this article I didn't' look up Google scholar(didn't even know it existed) I rather looked at articles of López-Corvo's peers (Otto F. Kernberg, Juan-David Nasio among others) that seemed to be accepted by the editors. Lancet (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Based on the information presented in the article, I would expect that the individual is notable. However, it's undeniable that there seems to be a lack of available sourcing about the person. I'll spend the next 15 or so minutes trying to determine to what extent the article's content is verifiable. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • One of the indicators of notability for creative professionals noted at WP:BIO is: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique". López-Corvo seems to be the originator of the term self-envy; however, since that article is rather short and unsourced, it's hard to tell whether the concept is "significant". I wonder whether Lancet750011 could provide the sources s/he used to write the article ... that might help. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • There are four sources cited in the article, of which three have web links.Lancet (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, I was referring to the article on Rafael E. López-Corvo, not the self-envy article. Sorry for the confusion. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
          • The article is based on my personal knowledge (I worked with him from 1973 to 1977). He is a very well known as psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in Caracas, Montreal and Toronto.Lancet (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
            • While his record does indeed seem to suggest that he would be well known, "personal knowledge" cannot be used as the basis for article content. Content must be verifiable, meaning that it must have been published by one or more reliable sources. Are there any such sources of which you are aware? – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
              • As for now I'm only aware of those sources I've given in the article. Please see Elonkas's contribution. The issue is not López-Corvo's existence but his notability. I created the article because he seems to me to be as notable as the other psychoanalyts whose articles I have quoted in this debate. Lancet (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
                • While this is indeed a question of notability rather than existence, notability is measured via the extent of coverage in reliable sources, rather than through subjective evaluations of noteworthiness. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 03:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per my prior remarks. Plus, we now have WP:COI and, to some extent, WP:NOR issues. See above remarks: "The article is based on my personal knowledge (I worked with him from 1973 to 1977). He is a very well known as psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in Caracas, Montreal and Toronto." Also, supposedly being well known locally does not denote encyclopedia-worthy notability. Doczilla (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no WP:COI for I have no stake in the keeping of this article and no WP:NOR for the few things I wrote about Rafael E. López-Corvo summarize what the quoted sources say.Lancet (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Doczilla, I don't think original research is an issue in the article, except perhaps the use of the word "outstanding" (inherently subjective) outside quotation marks. There is no original interpretation, definition, or synthesis, but rather a more direct problem of verifiability. Whether this problem is due to the absence of coverage of the subject in reliable sources or simply an inability on our part to find this coverage, I can't say. As for the other matter, I'd consider being well-known in the major cities of two countries a good indicator of notability if only the claim was supported by a source. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Questions Is it a normal practice for the Afd nominator to vote? and vote twice? Am I, as author, entitled to vote?Lancet (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Yes, it is normal for the AfD nominator to "vote", and of course, you as author get to express your own position. I've seen authors vote to delete their own articles and categories on numerous occasions. As for the "second" !vote: See where the page says "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached." Because some readers interpret that as starting all over, it can be necessary for someone who previously !voted to state that, regardless of whatever has happened in between, that individual continues to hold the same position. Not everyone will hold the same position depending on what the reason for relisting was. Whether there's a "second" is debatable anyway because after the actual nomination, I cast no !vote until the post-relisting entry. Doczilla (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Technically, AFD is not a vote, although it's not conventional to leave two bolded comments (as it may subconsciously affect a decision). The arguments and recommendations of both the author and nominator should be considered by whoever closes the discussion. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Two main factors could explain why Lopez-Corvo doesn't fully meet Wikipedia's notability criteria:
  1. He spent most of his life and carrier (up to the year 2000) in Venezuela, a country that is not reputed for scholarship and psychoanalysis.
  2. Almost all the articles he published, as well as the articles that quote him, are not freely available as can be verified in Google scholar.Lancet (talk) 13:55, 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 of the discussion was snowball keep. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Note: Non-admin Closure.

[edit] Walnut Street (Philadelphia)

Walnut Street (Philadelphia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I removed a bunch of store names, and boastful POV. Then, I realized that nothing was left to make this street notable. Mikeblas (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. This is one of the most prominent streets in Philly (5th largest city in the US), with plenty of cultural as well as historical importance. --krimpet✽ 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Major street in major city. Other that that, I realized that nothing was left to justify this AfD. Alansohn (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources, no claims of notability and little useful content. Wikipedia is not a street map. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability, and doesn't appear to justify a dedicated article. If it merits any mention, would be better within Philadelphia.--Michig (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Major street in a very large city. Notable enough. STORMTRACKER 94 13:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Major street in major US city with a long history. There are notable landmarks to mention, see Walnut Street Theatre. Joshdboz (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The Walnut Street Theatre is what shows up if you Google "Walnut Street", not the street itself (in this city). If the theatre is notable then it's fine that it has an article. Why does the street need one too? Colonel Warden (talk)
  • Keep While I understand the nominator's reasoning, you could remove the names of the stores from an article about Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, or take references to Saks off of Fifth Avenue in New York, and have "nothing left". As strange as it may seem, the fact that Walnut Street hosts the city's upscale shopping district is notable. There's a reason that retailers pay the high square footage costs to build and lease there. Mandsford (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Your assertion is incorrect. Both Rodeo Drive and Fifth Avenue have notability in their own right as their articles indicate - songs, parades, etc. Within Philly, compare Market Street or South Street for an example of what's needed. The current article doesn't come close to this. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mandsford and Alansohn. Major street in a world city. Blueboy96 15:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could those editors who want to keep this article perhaps add some content to it that indicates why it is notable? I've never been to Philly, and I can't tell from the article why this street is important. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the other keeps. Significant street in one of the world's historic and major cities. --Oakshade (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The street has Independence National Historic Park and Society Hill, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on the east, followed by Washington Square (Philadelphia), Washington Square West, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Walnut Street Theatre (825), St. James Hotel (1226-1232), Witherspoon Building (1319-1323 Walnut Street), Philadelphia Stock Exchange (1419-1411), Sun Oil Building (1608-1610), 1616 Building, Rittenhouse Square (also known as Center City West Commercial Historic District), Estey Hall (1701 Walnut Street), Church of the Holy Trinity, Philadelphia, and the Walnut-Chancellor Historic District (at 21st). There's even more stuff across the river, too. The current state of this article seems to focus primarily on the shopping, which is unfortunate. I'd recommend keeping this article and including some less fashion-conscious information about it. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article in it's current status precludes all debate. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Krimpet and Mandsford. The article is just not fully developed yet. --Appletrees (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - having that number of notable landmarks along it attests to its historical value. Just because WP:N is not yet satisfy to everyones liking, is no readon to delete. Dont forget WP:N is not and never will be official policy. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Major downtown streets like this in large cities are certainly notable, and the details bear it out.. DGG (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Snowball keep. It's a major city street in a major city, with major, well known establishments on the street, making the street notable. Snowball it because there are a vast number of keeps over deletes. --Son (talk) 03:24, 21 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 as unsourced neologism. Sandstein (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Figurenude

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

Protologism, minuscule number of Google hits, the referenced website figurenude.com is owned by the creator of this article Pseudomonas(talk) 03:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I've been working with the creator (and owner of the related website) to make him aware of Wikipedia policies; I won't take a position here, but just wanted to note that I've referred him over to Wiktionary and he seems agreeable to taking his protologism there. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Is a neologism by its own admission (first paragraph) with no references. Falls under something that someone made up one day because the domain name was available. Pharmboy (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Accounting, pending the transwiki process. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • let it remain.... Notability..? It is a word that has been used for very many years.
    I thought I was the first to use the term but was not nearly. I began using it around 1991. I did not use the internet then at all. You will find: figurenude Lisa's {fine art nude images}. figurenude.jpg by Lisa on 7/8/2001 There you will see an excellent image that IS a figurenude. Using the word extremely consistent with the definition. Olover Godby used the term to TAG this set of figurenudes around October 20, 2007 I used the term in court the first Wed after 7/9/2005 It may only be permanent in court records and to me, but that is OK. PLEASE let it remain...? If it must just go - I guess its OK. CurtisNeeley (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I don't think that MSN Groups passes muster as a source under WP:RS. Pharmboy (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability...? I personally used it online years ago. I have a severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and was once removed from a respirator with a "do not revive" order. Terri Schiavo died without her feeding tube but mine was left in after the respirator was removed. See. I was a fairly well known photographer of the nude. After being paralyzed, I have full use of only one arm. I still shoot fine art. It might be a result of aphasia that I feel the word has already existed and only been used by a few other photographers. All those on the site figurenude.com chose to have their fine art nudes presented on the site. Looking at Nude photography listing here you see several variations of how a nude photo is described. I do not mind not being listed as its creator. I didn't create it. It has been around for decades among photographers. I am unmistakably an expert at photography. Ansel Adams co-founded Group f/64 and I co-founded
    Group f/16. I thought co- signified two? I won't post anything else here and let it disappear. Perhaps it needs to go elsewhere? Hints? I just want to be a world famous photographer who is also mentally disabled, not just as a mentally disabled guy. Perhaps this could be a good citation for neologisms being common to a brain injury? I am looking into Wiktionary, but I think it really needs more background. CurtisNeeley (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the main problem here is that there are no outside citations. Add citations from reliable sources (see WP:RS) such as major newspapers (not just art publications) using the word or covering the topic, then notability is no longer the issue. As to being an expert, that really doesn't apply here. You could be the Pope of Chili Town and it wouldn't change the fact that we can't find proper citations proving notability and you haven't provided any to boot. Pharmboy (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
per your talk preferences... I tell you there are no outside citations 'yet'. There may never be outside of art publications. . CurtisNeeley (talk) 01:24, 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 Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beers of war

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

Author removed PROD tag, so here we are. This drinking game which appears to have been made up while playing video games one day has no indication whatsoever of notability. —Travistalk 02:46, 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 without prejudice to recreation if reliable sources can be found to prove notability. BLACKKITE 19:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Tribute to Metallica: Metallic Assault

A Tribute to Metallica: Metallic Assault (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable tribute album. Tribute albums are not automatically notable, and I can't see any sources or reasons why this one could be considered so. J Milburn (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is deleted, then so should lots of other album articles. Also, as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) this is the only notable tribute album to metallica. Perhaps I should add some more sources (although help is welcome!!!), but with GCSEs to do its difficult to keep up with wiki & school. Also, see Numbers from the Beast for a similar article, no sources etc, but this is not up for deletion (or wasn't last time I looked). George bennett (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can only nominate articles for deletion if I come across them- in any case, this discussion is about this album, not any other. If you think other album articles should be deleted, you are welcome to nominate them, but I will take a look at the article you linked to for you. As for this being the only notable tribute- what are you basing that upon? I can see no reliable sources about it, or any reason that it passes the relevant guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is i DON'T want this article to be deleted, hence why I am using a similar example to highlight why it should not be. I'm a definite keep for this article, in fact, you seem to be the only person who has come across this article and said it should be deleted (see the page's edit history). Any chance of a consensus?George bennett (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am aware you don't want it deleted, I am just pointing out that the fact that there are other, similar articles is irrelevent when we are discussing this article. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable album, there's a lot of compilations like this. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Generally, albums by notable artists are notable themselves. Notwithstanding a couple redlinks and some mis-directed bluelinks, this album seems to have several notable acts on it. Tribute album or not, I would say that it probably contains enough notable performers to warrant being kept. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not All Music Guide. This album was released on a major label with some notable musicians, but never won any awards and doesn't seem to have charted in any meaningful way. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no requirement under WP:MUSIC for albums to have won awards or to have charted in order to be notable. Rather, it says, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Numerous players on this album are notable. WP:MUSIC goes on, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting." As an album with multiple different contributors, there's an argument that it makes more sense to have it on its own page rather than on any particular artist's page. I'd also draw attention to the phrase "space permitting" -- I think the lack of space is a good reason not to merge this into Metallica. This article is rather stub-y and does need some citations, but let's not prematurely delete it. Bondegezou (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I am afraid you are mistaken. The guideline you cite (which, coincidentially, I have and will defend passionately) refers to studio albums by a single artist- compilation albums are not automatically considered notable, and must prove their own notability, through reliable sources. There are no reliable sources about this album, as far as I can see, and so it should go. Are you proposing that every compilation album ever released containing a notable artist is notable? That would probably make every compilation album every released by a professional record label notable, even though many of them will have barely sold a single copy. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to get some sources for this, but when I googled it it only came up with how to buy it. In response to the 'barely sold a single copy', with the overall high caliber of artists on this I'm fairly sure it sold a fair few copies, although googling again gave me no joy on this subject. George bennett (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly my point. We can find no reliable sources, and so we have no reason to believe that it is notable. Also, your assertion that you're 'fairly sure' it sold a few copies, because of the 'high caliber' of the artists, counts for nothing. I'm 'fairly sure' that if it had sold many copies, someone somewhere would have written about it- ezines would have reviews, album databases would have detailed entries and so on. No sources = no notability. J Milburn (talk) 13:18, 22 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 --JForget 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtney Williams

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

Article reads like a fan site. No WP:RS sources found, only numerous forks of WP's own article plus user-submitted sites. Was inclined towards a Not-notable speedy, but age of article and number of edits made me think a few other opinions would be worthwhile Manning (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep remove all the fan cruft and other unsourced rubbish and you may have something worth keeping but i still can find little reliable sources for notability. --Neon white (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN and Promotional. WP:BLP applies unless reliable sources can be found. Spawn Man Review Me! 11:29, 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yikes, strong delete. Removing the promotion and spamlinks here would trim the article down to maybe two lines. There definitely isn't enough notability here to warrant a keep. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because article reads more like a biased magazine article than a neutral encyclopedia article, which fails to meet guidelines at WP:NPOV. It is also difficult to determine notability for this article. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete just an extended tour of the (nn) subject's own web site. JJL (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is spam. --Lockley (talk) 18:28, 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 delete. Sandstein (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MadEdit

MadEdit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Image:Madedit a.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Fails WP:N; lacks significnat secondary coverage in reliable publications. PRODed before, deleted; PRODed again, remvoed by author without stating a reason. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - As per nom, NN and no secondary sources. Spawn Man Review Me! 01:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Unsure - we have pages for, say, NEdit and Yudit and dozens of other text editors that don't appear any more or less special than MadEdit. Why delete the MadEdit page and not at least 20 others from the List of text editors as well? --Arcanios (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. We must evaluate an article on its own own merits, not by comparing to other articles. If NEdit and Yudit and those dozens of others aren't notable either, then they should be proposed for deletion as well. Their presence isn't an argument to keep. =Axlq (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: True, their presence alone isn't an argument to keep. But if nobody has seen fit to AfD any of the 50 or so articles on other text editors, many of the arguments for that apply here as well. I hate double standards, that's all. --Arcanios (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a prime example of why "If article X then article Y." is fallacious. Unlike Gedit (AfD discussion), which is at least mentioned in approximately 60 books, this subject is mentioned in no books at all. Uncle G (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of evidence of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep some appearances in secondary sources, e.g. "Adding images to web pages using Adobe Photoshop 3.0 and Madedit. Library Software Review, 15, 88-52.". 12,000+ ghits, though most of them refer to Debian packages. Not really sure, but in dubio pro keepo. --Arcanios (talk) 10:17, 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 delete. Kurykh 02:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constantine M. Los

Constantine M. Los (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completing unfinished nomination by User:86.157.112.44. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - Under WP:CSD#G12; NN magnate and a direct copy vio from [56]. Spawn Man Review Me! 01:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Hold your horses, the bottom of the page says
      • Some of the information on this page come from a Wikipedia article and are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. sh¤y 01:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Woah, I typed '-wikipedia' in the Google search which is supposed to remove all hits with the keyword wikipedia in them! Struck my comments then, but I still feel the subject is NN. Sorry for the confusion, I musta missed the fine print at the bottom. :) Spawn Man Review Me! 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:23, 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 The result was speedy keep as nobody other than the nominator has voted to delete and I have decided to withdraw. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gedit

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

Doesn't meet WP:N - does not feature significant secondary coverage, which for software programs usually come in the form of reviews. I did a scroogle search and the only decent review that I could find that could be considered "significant" is that of Softpedia [57] which does not meet the criteria of multiple sources. After about 20 links, the hits literally become that – unrelated pages where they mention "gedit" in passing. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Set aside that FUTON bias. Look in books. Start with pages 254–255 of ISBN 0072261544 and page 137 of ISBN 8170088631. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay. Somehow I was aware of Google Books. Does a single paragraph and a single entry constitute significant coverage? (ISBN 0072261544). "Beginning Ubuntu Linux" mentions devotes a single header to it – "Using Gedit to edit text files." Is that non-trivial? Maybe it should be redirected into the GNOME article instead? hbdragon88 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Some links I found: [58] [59] [60] [61]. Also, the fact that "gedit" yields 1,070,000 hits sounds significant to me. I wonder if there are some old magazines that contain reviews of gedit, which I suspect is likely. I think the real question we should be asking if we can come up with some more concrete criteria for open source programs. Doing afd for each program is quite daunting, in my opinion. -- Taku (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The criteria are concrete. We want multiple non-trivial published works, from independent and reliable sources, discussing, analyzing, and documenting the subject, where published works can include and are not limited to magazine reviews, sections in books or even whole books, journal articles, and independently written documentation. See Wikipedia:Notability and User:Uncle G/On notability. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Commonly used editor. Should have an article. Hobit (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • keep and add the sources that are surely out there. --Jack Merridew 10:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Popular and notable editor. Reviews are not always the best indicator of notability. -- Masterzora (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • As published works, they are good indicators. They show that something is notable because it has been noted. Notability is not fame nor importance. This is not an encyclopedia of what's popular. It's an encyclopaedia of what is already known, acknowledged beyond its creators/authors/inventors/discoverers, and firmly documented. Popularity is not a criterion. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I guess a more accurate statement of what I was trying to say is "lack of reviews is not always the best indicator of lack of notability". I was more trying to inform the nominator that he/she should have looked beyond reviews before putting this up for deletion. -- Masterzora (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the default text editor in GNOME and part of the default GNOME installation in most distributions. That alone would qualify as the reason for notability; many popular Linux dists use GNOME by default and include gedit in the default apps. Example: Debian popcon by_inst rank of (incre-fng-dible) 692 out of 28147 packages! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:06, 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. Sandstein (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LG The V (VX9800)

LG The V (VX9800) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product. Plenty of original research, as too few substantial references exist to support a Wikipedia article on this phone. If we delete the OR, we're left with a list of features and a couple of photos -- essentially, a catalog entry, and Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every celphone in the world. This article also violates WP:NOT by having prices. Edison (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep—adequate references available; appears notable. Spacepotato (talk) 21:10, 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, enough sourcing to show the article could be expanded with more independent sources. Cirt (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep This is a notable article with multiple sources, but cleanup and expansion would be good. PrestonH 23:23, 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. Sandstein (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia 7160

Nokia 7160 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. This article has zero references and is only a couple of sentences long. Cell phones enjoy very short lifespans as products, and models like this one are evolutionary steps along a long chain of practically disposable products. References to support an article on this phone are hard to come by; largely, all that's available are reviews and self-published fan sites. Mikeblas (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep as one of the first wap/ media phone it deserves an article, needs improvement, but I have added references for what is there for now. Fosnez (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Question. Which one of the first was it? Tenth? Seventh? Second? Like so many of the articles on Wikipedia, your argument seems to be using weasel words. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a celphone catalog. No proof of notability. Edison (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable enough for mine and thanks to Fosnez for his work. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, enough sourcing to show the article could be expanded with more independent sources. Cirt (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep & improve. I think it's legit. I didn't even know they have a page for my phone, which is much cooler IMO -- even though it's older :) Well, my phone doesn't have WAP, but it has GPS nav. Daniel Santos (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Agreed that Wikipedia is not a Nokia Catalog, but it neither is the Britannica. Hollywood starlets, European regional folk myths, Japanese fetish, tiny universities, Pokemon characters... and a long list of gizmos and computer games are here on the Wikipedia. Never in the history of mankind has such things found there way into an encyclopedia, not matter how much the readers would have loved them. This phone is verifiably cited and is a part and parcel of the Nokia product range. Why would we want to delete it? Aditya(talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very weak argument . Any article has to satisfy WP:N on its own, and this one does not. Edison (talk) 03:12, 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 Redirected to List of portable software As far as I can see, everything notable is already in that article. If I have missed anything, please add it in BLACKKITE 17:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Portable Multimedia Software

List of Portable Multimedia Software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links as per WP:EL. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages as per WP:NOT#DIR Anshuk (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect to List of portable software. The content is fine, but there's no need for multimedia to get a separate page from the list of portable software -- Masterzora (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect as per Masterzora. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect as per Masterzora. In this case, one (more comprehensive) list is better than two. Do not delete; lists are a legitimate part of WP as are links to sources of additional information. Hmains (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, I agree with Masterzora (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Merge and Redirect, I also agree. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:57, 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 merge in part or redirect to tactical shooter. Sandstein (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tactical realism

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

Violates 1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization, 4: WP:SOAP

A few google hits don't make a wikipedia article. This isn't a notable genre. No reliable research to back it up, so it violates WP:OR. This is probably redundant with tactical shooter. Strikes me as self-promotion of a small community more than any notable genre. Randomran (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • delete redundant with tactical shooter. maybe redirect, and add a foot note in that article that there is a strong community around tactical shooter games, due to realism. but this article looks like a fansite more than anything. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The whole purpose of the term tactical realism is to emphasize that there is realism in the tactics of the game. Even Counter-Strike has been labeled as a tactical shooter, and while it emphasizes teamwork and team tactics, it does not have the means to employ realistic tactics, such as ironsights. Please check the talk page for some stuff I have dug up. I understand that I am the main editor of this article and am biased, but I have been meaning to improve this article for a while. Give it some time. --Leedeth 03:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
After reading and re-reading it's finally sinking in. The thing that's instantly confusing is that it's labeled as a genre (as virtually every gaming term is by at least some sites/reviewers/players), when everything seems to be pointing to a style of play of FPS games and a community/movement that's grown around it. It's a potentially useful term, certain FPS games put into a tactical realism category, for instance, but only if it can be properly defined. The links in the article and on the talk page indicate that whilst there is a grouping of players under this banner, but I'm not convinced it is a subject which can be reliably defined in an article. I'll have a look for some sources as soon as I'm able, but leaning delete or userfy on this one. Someone another (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think this establishes that this article is more about a community than any specific genre. There is definitely a community that is working hard to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to some games, based on their level of realism. But I think this either makes this article into an advertisement for that community, or a sub-section of tactical shooter. I still think this article shouldn't be here. But maybe instead of deleting it, it should be redirected to tactical shooter. There, you could enter a sub section on the "tactical realism" community -- who judges tactical shooters based on their level of realism. In the long run, who knows, maybe the term will grow in usage, and this article will eventually be notable enough. But I don't see that now. Not yet. Randomran (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Massively multiplayer online first-person shooter Tactical shooter and redirect Wading through the muddy slapdash terminology surrounding videogames is a nightmare and this one was no different. When using this exact term or ones like it, sources seem to be doing one of two things: referring to Tactical shooters or referring to what seems to be a growing community of gamers who like a particular playing style of First-person shooter, which is centred on particular FPS games, modifications for them and in particular game servers which support this style of play - online FPS games. There's a moderately reliable source here, endorsed by Shack News and Game Set Watch (and perhaps others), which can be used to cite a basic outline (IE "this style of play emulates what a real soldier would do as much as possible" with a few examples like grenade spamming) within that article. Trying to go into too much detail puts undue weight on a single source and would over-emphasize what is one corner of online FPS games. Should it be covered in more depth it would be something great to pop back out and expand with cites, though I'd advise against labeling it as a 'genre', the chaotic and totally uneven way in which genres are covered on WP is an example of why excessive references to different genres are the opposite of helpful. Despite which, kudos to Leedeth for being so level-headed when dealing with a subject which is important to him. Someone another (talk) 13:11, 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Undecided. I would say merge with Tactical shooter, but I doubt any of the material in the article is sourceable. SharkD (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, the source Someone another linked to does cover the points in significant detail. If we can establish the source's reliability, then I will definitely say Merge. SharkD (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, I'm not sure what the article has to do with MMOFPSs, so I don't agree with a merger into that article. SharkD (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Some of the games which fall under its banner are online MMOFPS, but looking again Tactical shooter is probably closer to the mark, changed suggestion accordingly. That source is certainly comprehensive but it doesn't really scrape reliable - it's a site which seems to have support of those with an interest in TR but isn't that far removed from a large fansite. If I was citing a small section about TR in another article, I'd use that source to wing it, but I wouldn't hang an entire article on it. I had a bloody good look before first commenting and had another just now and nothing else is coming up apart from the sites Leedeth has provided, various forum posts, gamer profiles, game server details etc. etc. A single-paragraph merge to Tactical shooter with a cite via the above article would provide as much coverage as I'd give it if I was writing it personally. Someone another (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Tactical shooter and redirect per Someone another. I agree now that it isn't notable enough to have its own article. Tactical shooter states: The tactical emphasis is thus on joint goals and assisting team members, rather than on overcoming realistic individual limitations. This is what I believe tactical realism is trying to cover. That article you linked to is already listed in tactical shooter as well. --Leedeth 10:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Withdraw deletion, conditioned on merge I'm impressed with your willingness to compromise, for someone who has obviously invested a lot of time into this article. I can support a merge, and think Tactical shooters make the most sense. In spite of everything, the information here is still useful and should go in wikipedia. But as part of a more notable article, though. Randomran (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ActiveMedia

ActiveMedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Image:ActiveMedia logo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

No sources to indicate notoriety. To keep needs WP:RS meshach (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC) meshach (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - Agree with nominator that sources are needed to establish notability. However, seems to me that 185,000 subscribers would make it notable. Surely sources could be found if someone would go and find them. --Richard (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • From activeMedia - We've added sources as requested, you can remove the deletion note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fradub (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment User then went and deleted the notice - I have restored Stephenb (Talk) 11:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep based upon nomination statement - nominating a Article for Deletion 6 minutes after its creation citing that there is a lack of sources ? good grief ! Saying it was Spammy or Advertorial I could understand ... but lack of sources ? The Article creator has added external links and Ref's within 10.5 hours of your AfD'ing this article. I would request that in future the nom allow more than minutes countable on fingers and toes in between article creation and AfD nominations, to allow some time for an article natural growth. We must Assume Good Faith in that newly created Articles will improove. That being said, the Article creator should read WP:COI so that he/she does not go to far and create grounds for deletion. This is all stuph that could have been dealt with on the relevent talk page. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:16, 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, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, promotional, lacks independent sources. Fails WP:CORP. As a capper has hateful little ™ symbols throughout like we're a press release repository. --Dhartung | Talk 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • From activeMedia - We've removed all the "TM" signs, even if I thought it would help for notability when everything is trademarked and registered according to law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fradub (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, promotional material, and sources provided are not independent enough for my liking. No assertion that the awards that they've won or the organisations that they've joined are particularly notable at all. With that said, taking the article to AfD less than ten minutes after creation is a pretty bite-y thing to do, even if there is WP:COI issues. Lankiveil (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete - Potentially notable. However, they haven't actually won any awards and there are no reliable sources attesting to the notability of their products. It also fails WP:NPOV with no critical reviews - what are the problems (all such products have them)? There is also a clear WP:COI. If this is truly notable an independent person will come along and write a less promotional piece. TerriersFan (talk) 04:09, 24 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 as a directory of links. May indeed be useful, but that does not also mean encyclopedic. Pastordavid (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of state machine CAD tools

List of state machine CAD tools (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a list of external links which violates "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." in WP:EL. Also look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free Go programs Anshuk (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I do not believe that this is a "comprWeehensive list". Also, it is rather apparent that the list is useful to some people. Although I was the one that created the page - I did not create the list of links. I moved the links from State machine, because it was clutering that page. I will post a little notice on that page's talk page. More thought should be put into this before deciding that the page isn't appropriate. Therefore tentative keep. Fresheneesz (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete(nominator). Wikipedia is not yellow pages per WP:NOT#DIR. -- Anshuk (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Your yellow pages argument does not apply. However WP:NOT#a repository of links does apply. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not very encyclopedic and even less useful than a Freshmeat search. I never saw the term "CAD tool" being used for finite state machine library (which is what many links are). If there is to be such a list it should first provide structured info what are the major techniques used to model FSMs, what tools represent them and links to literature. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Provided the links on the page are reviewed for their usefulness; not so much as an independant source of information, but as an appendix to other pages. As many of the free tools are supplied with additional information like worked examples, the page may serve as an index to it, thereby certainly contributing to the subject. Perhaps the page should better be transferred into a template, which is less likely to be polluted by spam. WimdeValk (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep (slightly weak) I can see how this information can be useful. Further, it used to be part of State_machine and was moved off to reduce clutter on that page. Personally, I think it needs to be cleaned up either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Santos (talk • contribs) 07:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Keeping this fresh will be nearly impossible. But it's darn useful. Hobit (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a directory listing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory and it is also not a place to put linkspam. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:27, 23 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 as Z-MC. Sandstein (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splurt

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

non-notable, and "facts" are unverifiable. Kingturtle (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not so sure. I can find sources to confirm that Z-MC has charted a song in Finland [here] and [here], which would establish notability under WP:MUSIC. I'm having considerably more trouble finding a reliable source to say that Z-MC is now known as Splurt, although that is repeated widely on the net. Xymmax (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep either as Splurt with a redirect from Z-MC or vice versa. Notability has been established by Xymmax. Naming of the article is an editing issue, not a deletion one. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Z-MC, as per Xymmax. I also can't find info backing up the name change, so that section may need to be rewritten to reflect that it's widely reported but may not be true. [62] may be helpful to creating a discography section. --Fabrictramp (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A very strong delete. This appears to be a self-promotional page. The original author Splurtysplurt has made no other contributions. If he were truely notable, somebody else would have cared enough to improve his "home page" in the last 11 months. Wikipedia isn't in the free hosting business. Daniel Santos (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The amount of edits and the amount of editors really has no baring on this discussion. --Neon white (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Move, passes criteria 2 of WP:MUSIC, just barely, but did it under a different name. Suggest a move to Z-MC. Lankiveil (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Move. I am in agreement with the above that this artist does indeed meet WP:MUSIC requirements. As said, though, the name which reliable sources to this charting need be the one of the article's title. SorryGuy  Talk  03:50, 24 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 by User:Athaenara as repost of deleted material, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hudson Mall

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

First of all, the page is nothing but a list of stores (and outparcels, actually), thus violating WP:NOT#DIR. In addition, the mall fails WP:RS, as no reliable sources could be found online regarding this place. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - Why is this Article here? Is it a recreation of previously deleted material without any improovment upon recreation - CSD (A3) seems to be applicable? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a repost. I speedy tagged this page but an admin declined it with the comment "delist csd (report) prior afd was (2006-04-05T00:18:09), feel free to bring this new page to WP:AFD as nom 2" which is far from clear to me. Not a single source that could stand up notability has been added so I see no reason why it shouldn't be speedied. BlueValour (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would think that we should at least notify and ask the input of the admin that removed the speedy. I would like to hear his reasoning as I to am confused by his Edit Summery. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Done but it's moot since the page has now gone ... BlueValour (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is limited to its immediate surroundings. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 03:26, 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. Redirect at your pleasure. Kurykh 02:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Lincoln-Kennedy Assassination Coincidences

List of Lincoln-Kennedy Assassination Coincidences (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, speculative WP:OR. Anyone with time in their hands can come up with a list of "coincidences" like this. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 01:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is OK as a bit of fun trivia but it sure as heck doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Recast as an article about the uraban legend rather than a retelling of the legend itself. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic, indiscriminate and unmaintainable list. Blueboy96 01:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as yet another repost of speedily deleted material. --Hnsampat (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
{{db-repost}} doesn't apply to speedies. Blueboy96 01:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Point well taken. However, I still say strong delete as unencyclopedic trivia (which, by the way, also contains numerous factual errors). --Hnsampat (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Assassinate per nom. This list has it all wrong: lacking in context, indiscriminate information, original research, trivia, unsourced, unwikified... highly inaccurate (check Snopes)... Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep only if moved per W.Marsh's suggestion. A page on the urban legend behind this all (like what Dryguy has) could be a viable page. I'll take a whack at it. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete but hey they missed the best one of all....one week before Lincoln's assassination he was in Monroe, Maryland. One wekk before JFK's he was in Marilyn Monroe. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC) (sorry an oldie, but a goodie)
    • Ah yes, I remember that one (even though Marilyn Monroe died more than a year before Kennedy was assassinated.)--Hnsampat (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Didn't we used to have an article that discussed the history of this list and its role in American folklore? I'm pretty sure it survived AFD a while back, but I can't find it anywhere. Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Yeah, I've seen a list like this somewhere before, long before Wikipedia was born, but what you are talking about here is not even addressed in the article. Fact is, without mention of such an influence, this list does not belong here. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 03:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • To clarify, we used to have another Wikipedia article about this topic. That one provided some context and history for this list, and it survived an AFD. I'm just wondering what happened to it. (I know it was in Category:Urban legends at one point; unfortunately, I don't remember the exact title.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, here's the discussion: link. Apparently, the article was later deleted as a copyvio. There's still a version of it in userspace, though. Zagalejo^^^ 03:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, I don't think Dryguy's version was a copyvio. It may have been a later edit to the page. Zagalejo^^^ 04:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic, OR. Maralia (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, speculative OR. Could always be recreated later if enough sourcing and WP:V is met with a new article. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Is there any reason why we couldn't restore this one? The June 2007 version of Lincoln Kennedy coincidences was deleted as a copyvio from Snopes, but Dryguy's draft was original, as far as I can tell. Zagalejo^^^ 04:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've seen this article in another form, and the Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences has been a subject of discussion since, well, 1963; not only as trivia, but also as an example of forcing the facts to fit a theory, making stuff up (Lincoln did NOT have a secretary named Kennedy, although JFK's secretary was Evelyn Lincoln; in fairness, author acknowledges this), and finding patterns that are not that interesting or uncommon. Sadly, the author is guilty of all these things. The page doesn't cite a single source (though Lord knows there are plenty of them), and some of this is OR in the sense of synthesizing material to make your own theories. The Lincoln-Kennedy "trivia" has been a part of mid-60s pop culture as well as debunked nonsense, kind of like 1963's version of "The Bible Code", so while this article should be deleted, it's a noteworthy topic. Mandsford (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the difference between this and OR is that 3rd parties have done the research themselves. Numerous websites list these similarities, and a book was even written comparing them [63]. Perhaps a name change, but there is something behind this. Joshdboz (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Lincoln Kennedy coincidences urban legend as this is a more appropriate title and layout. Joshdboz (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject of the article is notable enough for inclusion. Having an entire book published on the subject usually indicates notability, and multiple other reliable sources are easily found. Rray (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Almost certainly original research, no citation of reliable sources, or any source for that matter. Most satify notability, but there is nothing that can be verified, and there are many, many claims. Rt. 14:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/rewrite but move to something like Lincoln Kennedy coincidences urban legend. This is one of those things that an encyclopedia doesn't cover because the premise (that the coincidences are all true and meaningful) is true, but because it's so widely known and reported on that the legend is a notable topic. For the coverage I refer to, see [64], coverage dating back to 1964 apparently by mainstream sources. User:Dryguy/Lincoln Kennedy Coincidences is a good place to start with the improved article, if that isn't a copyvio (I assume not). --W.marsh 15:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)--W.marsh 15:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced, unencyclopedic speculation. Biruitorul (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I've seen this as a chain email. Dchall1 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I was bold and moved Dryguy's draft into the title suggested by W.marsh. I've checked several phrases and see no evidence of a copyvio. Zagalejo^^^ 20:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
In that case the best outcome for this article is to redirect it to that one. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll second that. At least the newly created Lincoln Kennedy coincidences urban legend has some encyclopedic value. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 03:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Lincoln Kennedy coincidences urban legend per W.marsh. The list is not significant as history but is a well known piece of folklore. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as description of this venerable urban legend per comments of DanielRigal and W.march. --Lockley (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per Joshdboz. Looks like a good way to keep valid encyclopedic content and remove WP:OR -FrankTobia (talk) 22:14, 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 Delete --JForget 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pam pack

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

Non-notable high school mascot. Article is mostly speculative OR. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 01:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete No assertion of notability that I can tell. Blueboy96 01:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. No assertion of notability whatsoever, page can easily be merged with parent article if any information is there to merge. GlobeGores (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - No real independent sourcing to speak of. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Completely nuke it Exceedingly unnotable, local, etc. Daniel Santos (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - Not notable, no sources, most likely original research. Rt. 13:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I particularly like the quote The origins of the "Pam Pack" are unknown to many students current and past which is a self admission that it isn't notable. Pharmboy (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. The high school itself doesn't seem to have an article; supporters of the high school would be better off writing an article about the school rather than just its mascot. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Washington High School (North Carolina) and start afresh. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment That would make it pretty untouchable, via wp:school, and legit. I would accept that, although I would hope someone would work on the article more afterward. Pharmboy (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't quite see how an entire school article could be made out of an unsourced, possibly WP:MADEUP NN mention of a sports mascot. Delete. If an article on the school should be created in the future (per Metropolitan90) the mascot might merit a line or two. Possibly. Tonywalton Talk 23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well that was what I had in mind, but I didn't exactly make that clear. Pharmboy (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Great big piles of delete. I'm dubious that any high school mascot is notable; I'm positive that this one isn't. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:56, 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 delete. The one WP:V source in the article isn't actually about the film but the company that makes these "mockbuster" films; the film isn't mentioned in the article. Google news search results referenced by User:Liquidfinale appear to be all trivial mentions. No WP:V, no article. Pigman☿ 06:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Am Omega

I Am Omega (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable Asylum direct to video film made to cash in on I Am Legend. If anything, it should be merged with The Asylum article. CyberGhostface (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Question - while I agree that most of what The Asylum does is clearly non-notable, does the fact that this one has received some minor coverage not warrant its inclusion, no matter how crappy a cash-in it might be? Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 01:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The article is still young - but the fact that it's a direct-to-video movie doesn't make it any less of a movie. As CyberGhostface has pointed out on several occasions, other Asylum movies (Like Transmorphers) have their own article. CyberGhostface simply wants the article deleted so others will stop putting it into the I Am Legend article. TheUncleBob (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please assume good faith. Just because I don't want it on the I Am Legend article doesn't necessarily mean its my sole reason for deletion. Its that its a non-notable film that will be forgotten in a month like all the other Asylum films. And btw, Transmorphers is the ONLY other article about an Asylum film at this time.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - remaining passive in all this, but before I go, I should probably mention that the blue links here would disagree with that (though I will say that perhaps a portion of those should be struck off). Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 01:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment A quick look shows that the only other Asylum movie I'm slightly familiar with, Snakes on a Train, also has an article. Does Wikipedia have a policy on what determines if a movie is "notable"? TheUncleBob (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia:Notability has a policy on it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Well, that's a guideline, not a policy (two different concepts, but: 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' As Liquidfinale pointed out above, the movie has had some coverage outside of official advertising and such. A quick Google Search pulls up quite a few more articles [[65]], [[66]] and [[67]] spring out as pretty in-depth articles. TheUncleBob (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Quietearth.us's site isn't an indepth article, its more of a blurb saying "So and so is about to be released". I don't know if DreadCentral would count as proof of a film's notability; I'm a member of that site and they review nearly every horror release and a number of them are direct to dvd flicks that no one knows about. I can't speak about horror-movies.ca, though.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Liquidfinale. It does seem to be covered by independent reviewers, according to its rotten tomatoes entry, although the only review seems to be some Nordic language (Icelandic, it would appear), however a full review is a full review, and that makes it suitable. 04:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Change to delete. Upon further reading, WP:MOVIE says two or more, and this only has one. Otherwise, it satisfies no criteria. J-ſtanTalkContribs 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment So if I can find a review for any film than that film would be suitable for inclusion on wikipedia?--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Umm... I posted two reviews that I found in just a quick Google search. Add it to the Nordic review mentioned above, and that's three...TheUncleBob (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This movie is still new. Irregardless if it's an average movie that'll end up in Svengoolie show in comparison to the Winter blockbuster movie I am Legend movie. It's relevant information to know what other movies was based on I am Legend book.--Pilot expert (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Are you going to make articles for every b-grade Draula film so people people will know about movies based off Stoker's work? Besides, its only real similarity to the book is the title and the idea of a last man on earth fighting monsters. Its not even an official adaptation, just a quick cash-in on Smith's film.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I conur. Please keep this article. More stuff will be added in the future.--DarkWingEagle 13:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkWingEagle (talk • contribs) — DarkWingEagle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thats not exactly a valid reason to keep the article. How do you know more stuff will be added to the future?--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Google News sources linked to by Liquidfinale, and that Icelandic review on Rotten Tomatoes. It may be a rip-off film, but it's been covered by several outside sources. --Pixelface (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've found out about a lot of cool movies from their Wikipedia entries, and it would be a shame to see those entries deleted. Here's hoping the quality of the entry will be improved in the future. --Tabmok99 (talk) 18:31, 21 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 deletion. If anyone is willing to transwiki, I would be happy to provide the deleted content to interested editors. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of other Warriors characters

List of other Warriors characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Similar case, yet again, to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ShadowClan Cats. It has many, many tags and appears to be just a bunch of fancruft. ~ Bella Swan 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, I agree with everything said by the nom. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep for now Wikipedia as a group is trying to figure out where consensus is on something like this. I think we wait for the various discussions to finish before such things are deleted. Hobit (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same as List of SkyClan Cats. Daniel Santos (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • delete en masse - per comments on the others; NN. --Jack Merridew 10:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Violates a number of policies, primarily WP:N and WP:FICT. •97198 talk 14:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Warriors Wiki as we have with the other deleted pages. No reason for all this work to be lost simply becuase it dosen't fit Wikipedia when it will fit Warriors Wiki once it's split into the various character pages. Kitsufox(Fox's Den) 15:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:Plot, WP:WAF and others Ridernyc (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:43, 21 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 both. Kurykh 01:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Begriffsschrift and Interlingua compared

Begriffsschrift and Interlingua compared (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)– (View AfD)
Interlingua and the characteristica universalis compared (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- added as related article Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research. Even though a number of sources are mentioned, none of them even touches this comparison. The comparison actually makes no sense. "Begriffsschrift" and "Interlingua" are two completely different things, so the comparison only consists of a collection of differences, with no common properties mentioned. It is a bit as if I was to create an article "Tables and cars compared", mentioning all the differences between tables and cars. We don't need comparison articles for any pair of ideas. Comparison articles only make sense if there are sufficient similarities, and if the comparison itself has been addressed in some sources; else it is clearly original research. Marcoscramer (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Essay comparing two rather dissimilar things: a language and a notation for a system of formal logic. Interlingua and the characteristica universalis compared has similar issues: it compares a real spoken language to a hypothetical philosophical language. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both as essays full of OR and synthesis, comparing two dissimilar objects. I added the other article mentioned by Zetawoof to this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both as original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR--Dchall1 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the prime article as violating WP:OR, or at least WP:SYNTH. Not sure about the second one. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Story Begins

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

This series is yet to be released, first airing in February 2008. The article was created by Linleybrosllc (talk · contribs), presumably related to the production company. The only Google hit for +"Marco van Bergen" +"story begins" is this Wikipedia article. "Marco van Bergen" gets a lot more hits, but none of them appear to be the Marco van Bergen of this article. Vanispamcruftisement. AecisBrievenbus 01:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Google on "My Story Begins" LinleyBros OR "Marco van Bergen" OR "Martijn van de Velde" OR "Carré Albers" OR "Bart Volmer" OR "Andy Teerlink" gets 2 hits, Wikipedia and the other one. Lots of red-links. Good luck on the show though. Daniel Santos (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable in any way; the lack of sources is rather telling here. Could it be a hoax? Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • delete - the crystal ball aspect of this home video project makes it unsuited for wikipedia. In addition, there do not appear to be any reliable sources to verify the notability. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • do not Delete Yes. I know it's an encyclopedia. Yes. I know al the blah blah about deletion. But please dear people. Have a heart. Aecis. Did you liked it when I "Vandalized" your page? No. I did exactly the same thing as you did on my page. I placed a deletion tag. How does that feel? We are working very heart to create this series. I cite Aecis: Also, do not vandalise my userpage. Do you seriously think that you're gonna achieve anything with that? - My answer: No I don't. But I wanted to let you feel how it is when your page gets tagged by someone who thinks he's "Serious". Dear people. I'm 14 years old, And I'm trying to make a kick-ass series. Not that a stupid wikipedia article is gonna ruin it, but I can tell you that I have been spending the last FIVE MONTHS of my life on this project. Don't you think it's harsh to remove my blood and sweat? For Example: Aecis (wanna know why I'm continuously getting you: You seem to be the moderator of this nonsense) If you made a movie. And you're proud of it. And you want people to know about it. Then (if you have a heart) it feels very painfull when someone heartless deletes the thing YOU HAVE BEEN MAKING for the past few months. And I can assure you, IT IS NOT A HOAX.

BUT you can't get me on the references thing! I noted the official site and soon the official Season one companion book page will be online. I must stop now. Getting a little bit too depressive of this shit. But the last thing I'm gonna write about you, Aecis, is a cite of one of my best friends about YOU: "There are some out there who just love inflicting as much misery as they can on others. Wikipedia is filled with them. " But, if it has to be like this. I'll not lose my honor and delete the page myself. I think it's a shame for the community. Funny thing: That's what the whole series is about! LinleyBrosllc (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

the references need to be by other folks, not by you or the website for your project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears that you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. The subjects of Wikipedia articles need to be notable, encyclopedic and verifiable from reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, it is not a publisher of original thought, it is not a crystal ball, it is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion, and it is not a place to write about yourself or about projects you are involved in. I can understand that you care deeply about this subject, and I wish you all the best with the series, but it does appear that you have come to the wrong venue with this. AecisBrievenbus 00:22, 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 deletion. If anyone is willing to transwiki, please contact me on my talk page and I would be happy to provide the deleted content to interested editors. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of SkyClan Cats

List of SkyClan Cats (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ShadowClan Cats, fancruft, multiple tags, and should be deleted/transwikied. ~ Bella Swan 01:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, I agree with everything said by the nom. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep for now --- See comments under List of other Warriors characters. Whole group of these should have been proposed as a group. Hobit (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. They should start their own wiki for this (e.g., Wookipedia). There certainly seems to be enough material for it, but this isn't the place for it (this is an encyclopedia). To the authors/maintainers, go check out wikia.com. Daniel Santos (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • delete non-notable. --Jack Merridew 10:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Violates a number of policies, primarily WP:N and WP:FICT. •97198 talk 14:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Warriors Wiki as we have with the other deleted pages. No reason for all this work to be lost simply becuase it dosen't fit Wikipedia when it will fit Warriors Wiki once it's split into the various character pages. Kitsufox(Fox's Den) 15:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:N and WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete besides violating WP:N and WP:FICT, it also has absolutly NONE encyclopedic content at all. No External Links to prove the data. However, it just might fit in the Warriors wiki...Brownie10125 (talk) 17:52, 21 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 deletion. If anyone is willing to transwiki this, please ask me on my talk page and I would be happy to provide the content of the page to interested editors. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of WindClan Cats

List of WindClan Cats (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ShadowClan Cats. Mostly fancruft and should be deleted and/or transwikied. ~ Bella Swan 00:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, I agree with everything said by the nom. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. Same as List of SkyClan Cats. Daniel Santos (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • delete again non-notable - merge these AfDs, someone. --Jack Merridew 10:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Violates a number of policies, primarily WP:N and WP:FICT. •97198 talk 14:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Warriors Wiki as we have with the other deleted pages. No reason for all this work to be lost simply becuase it dosen't fit Wikipedia when it will fit Warriors Wiki once it's split into the various character pages. Kitsufox(Fox's Den) 15:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki To the Warriors Wiki. It wouldn't fit with Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be gone forever.Iceberg2229 (talk) 19:00, 21 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. PeaceNT (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of ShadowClan Cats

List of ShadowClan Cats (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page is fancruft and has many tags about verifiability, style, fan site resemblance, how long it is, and the list goes on. This page should at the very least be transwikied, if not deleted entirely. ~ Bella Swan 00:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, I agree with everything said by the nom. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. Same as List of SkyClan Cats. Daniel Santos (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • delete this one too - same reasons. --Jack Merridew 10:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Violates a number of policies, primarily WP:N and WP:FICT. •97198 talk 14:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Warriors Wiki as we have with the other deleted pages. No reason for all this work to be lost simply becuase it dosen't fit Wikipedia when it will fit Warriors Wiki once it's split into the various character pages. Kitsufox(Fox's Den) 15:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per all above. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:42, 21 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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tanner Walle

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

This seems non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yes, that's precisely why i prodded it. Not sure why it needs an AfD before the prod has expired. tomasz. 00:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
'cause I wasn't certain and wanted a bit broader view Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:59, 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. — Scientizzle 00:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Morales Murguia

Hugo Morales Murguia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There's no indication that Hugo Morales Murguia meets any of our notability guidelines. The only three links in the article are to his own website and to the two schools where he appears to be studying. Coverage outside Wikipedia appears to be minimal at best. AecisBrievenbus 00:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete no independent coverage to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per the nom and lack of coverage in independent sources. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete not notable Daniel Santos (talk) 09:06, 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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Command Carrier

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Command Carrier Articles for deletion/Command Carrier (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Command Carrier (3rd nomination)
Command Carrier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional spaceship. It's been 2 months since the first AfD nomination. Practically nothing was improved. Many other Farscape articles have been AfD'ed since, and all that's clear is that they have been abandoned by fandom, so I have been merging them in the past few days to avoid another AfD. I feel the content of this article cannot be merged anywhere and is nonnotable on its own. It is already mentioned in Races in Farscape#Peacekeepers and is otherwise (sourced) WP:FANCRUFT. As I said in the Prod (which was denied because of the last AfD), I wouldn't mind turning this article into a redirect if someone thinks it has a future. But it shouldn't remain in its current state. – sgeureka t•c 00:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete nn; merge anything useful to a main article if desired. JJL (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete & merge useful data That's the problem with fancruft, they eventually move on and leave behind lots of stuff that is uninteresting, unmaintained and unrelated to reality. No offense meant to anybody, I used to do MMORPG fancruft back in the early '60s. Daniel Santos (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Proposer is saying that this material can't be merged elsewhere and it's too soon since the last AFD. See WP:NOEFFORT. I did a quick book search myself which leads me to believe that more is possible. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said, I have been working on Farscape articles in the past few days because no one else is (i.e. I put a lot of effort into bringing these inline with WP:FICT, including going to Deletion Review, and I don't see a future for the article content). Last AfD closed with if not improved further, can be the subject of another AfD after a few months - it's been two months and nothing (not even a word) was improved. There has been plenty of time for interested editors, and if not proven otherwise, I'll take the google books as just retelling the plot (against WP:NOT#PLOT). I'll be happy to withdraw this nom if others can bring this article in line with WP:FICT; I have done all I could. – sgeureka t•c 10:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kudos to Daniel for his comment; spot-on. --Jack Merridew 09:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no time limit for an article to be improved. That isn't a valid reason for deletion. Rray (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge into Races in Farscape#Peacekeepers. I don't think this spaceship deserves an article of its own, but it would be fine as a few sentences in that article. If this article does get merged or deleted, the category Cat:Farscape spacecraft should then be deleted, as this is its only member. (Note that Moya (Farscape) no longer has its own article - and it's considerably more notable than this one.) Terraxos (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have sort of a soft spot for these articles since they are sort of what got me interested in Wikipedia in the first place. Yes in hindsight there are issues, mostly the in-universe perspective. As for the notability question of ficational subjects that seems to be a fuzzy topic on the best of days (and I'm inclined to think this is notable), and the guideline itself appear to be disputed at the moment. Usualy it seems to come down to popularity and how many users like the subject. Farscape beeing somewhat obscure in the grand scheme of Sci-fi shows is at a disadvantage here I guess, while obscure minor characters from Star Wars expanded universe novels or games tend to stick around (no I'm not trying to argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just an observation). I'm also a bit puzzled as to why there is not even a "List of Farscpae spacecraft", it would seem a far better solution than the outright deletion most Farscape spacecraft articles. Instead they seem to be shoehorned into vaguely related articles (such as the list of races) and reduced to maybe a single sentence. I guess in the end of the day my reasons for wanting to keep it boils down to mostly "I like it" with a dash of "does no harm" (wich is why I'm not making this a "vote" as such), but I would like to point out that WP:FICT is hardly an iron clad rule, it is entierly permissable to have "sub articles" about elements of an overall notable work of fiction (Farscape in this case, and Command Carriers are a fairly major plot element of Farscape). This is not a kind of article we have to delete per some policy. Granted it's not the best of articles, and it haven't improved a lot lately, but I feel people have been a little to eager to delete these kinds of articles lately (unlike say a poorly sourced negative bio about a marginaly notable living person). Ok, yeah I've been around long enough to know how these things work, just because there is a tonne of other stuff that need deletion more badly doens't mean other stuff is kept, and people have differnet priorities. Mostly just wanted to vent of a little pent up "frustration" after noticing that pretty much all the articles I've created or contributed a lot to when I got into Wikipedia have gotten either deleted outright, or first merged to a list and then deleted lately (I've never claimed to be a major contributor content wise), just the way of the wiky though I guess. Sorry about the rant, though hopefully some food for thought. --Sherool (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Your comment is quite welcome, and I hope I can shed some insight. (1) WP:FICT is not disputed for what notability means, but what the right way is to deal with nonnotable stuff (e.g. discussion/merging/redirecting/prod/AfD). (2) The reason that no List of Farscape spacecrafts was made is because at the time I merged all races, the Peacekeeper (Farscape) article had already been deleted in AfD (I revived it in Deletion Review) and I had no way of knowing that it contained some bits of spacecraft material it would have that I could merge into a new list. I also admit my own bias here that I don't see the point of almanach-like information about CG spacecrafts, when all the real-world information I know of is "it was made in CG". And as far as I can see, Farscape articles have been abandoned, so I saw little in hope in someone else getting these articles up to WP:WAF/WP:FICT standards, and I merged all merge-worthy information. This article is a leftover, and I prefer a redirection/deletion until the time comes that somebody can show that it has potential, as I don't really see any. (I might be wrong, and AfD is there for discussion for a reason.) – sgeureka t•c 10:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PLOT. Ridernyc (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nomination. Agree completely. Eusebeus (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per notability and verifiability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Many other Farscape articles have been AfD'ed since, and all that's clear is that they have been abandoned by fandom" - well, of course they've been "abandoned by fandom", their work keeps being swept aside. It's ridiculous to mass nominate articles and then use "people have stopped working on these articles" as a justification for wiping out the survivors. Also, I note a number of "merge and delete" votes above. I must remind everyone that this is actually illegal; the GFDL requires that the contributor history be retained. Bryan Derksen (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fact is, almost none of the former Farscape subarticles passed WP:FICT despite sufficient "warning". There was no "work", there was just plot-plot-plot, with a little original research thrown in. Hence these articles should all have been deleted. To avoid that, I spent some days to save what was reasonably worth keeping per WP:FICT, and proposed/nominated the remaining two out of 35 articles for deletion. Please be more considerate of the people trying to free wikipedia of things that don't belong. – sgeureka t•c 20:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no time frame for an article to be improved. I just can't see a valid reason to delete this article. As it was mentioned, many Farscape articles have been nominated before AND the nomination for all of them have been resolved and closed. Just my opinion. Loukinho (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the articles for the Ancients, the Peacekeepers, the Sebacean and Farscape One ended in a delete/redirect several weeks/months ago, which somehow still didn't cause an improvement drive for FS articles. Also, WP:DEADLINE (to which I think you are refering) states the we can wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established. This article has not established its significance for 2.5 years, and it seems it never will. By today's standards, the article should never have been created in the first place. – sgeureka t•c 11:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Look, I personally don't think you read what I wrote. I never mentioned the ESSAY that links to WP:DEADLINE. I just said that there's no time frame for an article to be improved. I just can't see a valid reason to delete this article. I do believe that a few articles have been deleted before and I'm not arguing that in any ways whatsoever, I'm just saying that many Farscape articles have been nominated before AND the nomination for all of them have been RESOLVED AND CLOSED. I believe even more that since this is an article that has been nominated before, it makes no sense TO ME to stick with this afd. Again, this is just my OPINION. -- Loukinho (talk) 02:20, 22 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serio

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

nn musician Will (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I can promise you that this guy will have to be blocked and possibly the article name be blocked before this is over. Daniel Santos (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked for removing the AfD template again after final warning. Not that this article is not a speedy delete, as it makes claims of notability even if untrue. AfD is a better process for this type of article regardless, which may be repeatedly created. BLACKKITE 15:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, but let's keep it civil, eh? Tonywalton Talk 11:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete notability issues. Pharmboy (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Utterly fails WP:MUSIC, no coverage to speak of. Blueboy96 17:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable musician, Google test has shown no reliable sources or unrelated to this context. The "sources" are Myspace and Youtube, both of which are unacceptable forms of sources. PrestonH 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Serio1 is now engaged in repeatedly removing the AfD tag from Serio, and has on one occasion placed an AfD tag on Serio River. I've warned the user with {{uw-afd2}}. Tonywalton Talk 09:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Just submitted as vandal (he rm tag 3x in 3 minutes), he has been indef. blocked, so I don't expect him to pipe in here. imho, I think we have concensus on delete. Pharmboy (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My finger was trembling on the "Block" button when I was beaten to it. I'll give this until tomorrow a.m. (UK time) - it does look like WP:SNOW applies. Tonywalton Talk 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • $10 says that an IP address will start rm the tags or recreating the article. Guy is freaky about getting an article on himself here for some unknown reason. Pharmboy (talk) 18:04, 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 --JForget 00:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1993 ATP Tour

1993 ATP Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I don't really see how this is useful to the encyclopedia. It just seems to be a very large list; that's it. —Jonathan 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep It's useful...it's listing all the main tennis events sponsored by the ATP during every year and who won them, for quick and easy reference and comparison. It saves a lot of travel and link-clicking of the ATP website, whereas everything is on one page here. It's the same way with the 2007 ATP tour, 2006 ATP tour, etc. And deletion of the material after such hard work checking everything would not be very nice. GAThrawnIGF (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This seems to be an acceptable method of sorting this kind of info; note that there several other 199x and 200x ATP Tour pages in the template at the bottom. I can see no reason to single out just one of these. However, I would make sure to add a little more context to each list. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is what a list should be like ... I note that most similar professional tours have season articles like this one. Blueboy96 20:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I do agree with TenPoundHammer though, that some context and information needs to be added to these lists. If it isn't, then they'll keep coming back to AfD I'm afraid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. You're actually fighting something much bigger here, if this were deleted then by principle, all the others would have to be. Lists of winners are encyclopaedic - I'll accept that something like this probably wouldn't appear in a physical encyclopaedia but we're not bound by volume here, the sky's the limit. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:30, 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.