Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 18

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kings On Set

Kings On Set (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTE, nn content, it says in the first line :rumored to be" Tiptoety (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia isn't going to disappear anytime soon, you can hold off on creating articles until sources can confirm the subject. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per TenPoundHammer; almost everything the article says is unconfirmed. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL & above comments.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - rumours do not constitute reliable sourcing -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 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. I read the lengthy comments below and looked carefully at the article. The number of single purpose accounts expressing "keep" wasn't encouraging nor that Coolguyfromwest !voted "keep" twice. Additionally, the "delete" arguments were detailed, persuasive and to the point, particularly Whpq's analysis of the citation/sources. Most of the article boils down to a general resume of Yash Talreja's career: positions he held, project teams he led, companies he worked for. The assertion of notability connected to the specific patent seems valid but he was also one of six names on the patent, not a clear individual assertion. The importance of the patent itself seems clear but with no secondary WP:V or WP:RS sources to interpret the patent's direct significance to online commerce and its history, the claim is essentially WP:OR. I note that the entire fourth paragraph of the article outlining the significance has no citations for its content, again suggesting WP:OR. Note: This was a complicated discussion. If someone feels I've misinterpreted the discussion or the evidence, please bring it to WP:DRV. Pigman☿ 02:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yash Talreja

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

Only claim of notability is one patent. No references to independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:52, 18 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}}

We are working on getting more references. Please be patient.User:Coolguyfromwest 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This was a stub. It takes a bit to build the complete works of Mr. Talreja. ****--Leppykahn (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)— Leppykahn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

please dont delete there is more information now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.175.117 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. If the subject is not notable, there is nothing you can add to the article to save it from deletion. The article does not even mention what, specifically, the patent he received was for. One does not become a notable inventor by simply adding a minor improvement to an existing invention. --Blanchardb-^MeMyEars

^{Cocolee2 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC) MyMouth}-timed 11:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP: more details have been added for the invention, and other various links. Mr. Talreja even coined the term Artificial Imagination as part of his research done in the topic at University of California, Davis, a term which we are planning to define at wikipedia. Someone who invented a notable entry for a wikipedia has to be considered to be notable.

Coolguyfromwest (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment At one point, the article states, "Mr. Talreja’s contribution to the field of Electronic Commerce was recognized by grant of US Patent 6578015". To me this is not an assertion of notability. If I say, "Graham Bell received a patent with such and such number," I am not asserting Bell's notability in any way. However, if I say, "Graham Bell invented the telephone," now that is a valid notability assertion. To me, both this article and its talk page sound a lot like bells and whistles to give a man more notability than his achievements warrant. IF the Wikipedia community deems this man notable enough, then there is a thorough cleanup to be done to the article, with the question being, not, what else should we add?, but rather, what should we delete?. One exception though... the article should say in the very first sentence what Talreja's patent was for, and it should say so in no more than one line, with the word patent not used in that sentence. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 03:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, people are getting rather particular. I've seen many wikipedia articles that are much more stubby than this one and are not marked for deletion. (For instance: soy candles). Is this because it is an article about a person and not an object? Also, I've also seen articles where the person is notable for being someone else's relative, instead of being notable in their own right. These articles have never been marked for deletion. It seems that Mr. Talreja is being picked on for no good reason. I personally use Peoplesoft at my job, so now I must thank MR. Talreja for having a hand in that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.177.27 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC) — 75.20.177.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above argument falls under the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category and only tells us which articles we should be discussing next at AfD. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 11:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, are you telling us that Talreja developped Peoplesoft? If he did, we need the article to say just that. If not, you are actually telling us that it is not Talreja that is notable, but whoever it is that built upon Talreja's work. As for stubby articles, the example you showed, Soy candle, says all that needs to be said to establish actual and verifiable notability. The Yash Talreja article fails in that domain despite being much longer. As I said before, notability should be asserted in the very first sentence of the article. Otherwise most people won't bother to read the rest. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 11:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability. The references provided in the article don't cut it. And a search reveals press releases but thing of substance. I am open to having my mind changed by actual reliable sources but I see noen in the article and can find none in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above, especially Blanchardb. Notability, especially for WP:BLP articles, needs to be clearly asserted, early in the article, and verified by independent, reliable, fact-checked sources. These are non-negotiable when dealing with articles about living persons. In fact, BLP says that whenever an assertion is made about a real, living person that is not verified, it is supposed to be deleted immediately without vote, without consensus, and without prejudice. The claims made in this article are large claims. If Mr. Talreja "invented" electronic payments, as asserted late in the article, could I or anyone else find an article about him? I would think so, but I couldn't. Maybe I've missed something. Keeper | 76 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I worked at Amazon.com from 1999 to 2004 and met Yash Talreja there. I can attest to the fact that he was part of the senior management team that headed the Item and Order Management Systems for our enterprise customers. Sincerely, Wilhelmina Dietrich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.226.41 (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC) — 24.18.226.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment No personal offense intended, but your personal testimonials are not considered reliable resources. Keeper | 76 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP: The invention by Mr. Talreja of Methods, systems and devices of electronic bill presentment and payment is acknowledged and verifiable by the link to the entry in the USPTO provided in the reference. Since the Assignee is Oracle Corporation (again verifiable by the references provided), and Oracle has a product called Oracle Payments, (verifiable by another link) it is reasonable to assume that the invention is actually being used in the Product. May the reasons there are no other articles on his invention, is, that the magazine publishers refused to believe that someone called "Yash" and not Bill, Steve, Larry, or Graham could have actually invented anything notable? Despite the USPTO entry to the contrary? Harminder2 (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  Please assume good faith on behalf of your fellow editors, and do not assume racist motives. That could be seen as very insulting. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

modified previous entry to demonstrate my good faith on fellow editors. However, an invention should be considered verifiable based on the entry in USPTO and evidence of that invention's usage, not based on how many other people chose to highlight or ignore the inventor. We, at wiki are free of biases, but we cannot asume the same for the magazines. Harminder2 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)— Harminder2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your chain of reasoning may be correct oer may not be correct. There is no proof for verifiability. Oracle may have the patent but is not using it. Or using a part of it. but cannot just assume without prrof. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: this may be too demanding on the authors. Do we require a signed affadavit from Larry Ellison that the company is actually using the patents it must have spent hundred of thousands of dollars of legal fee to file and receive (both the invention and assignment to the company is veirfiable), on the products in the same domain (verifiable), before we admit anyone else other than Mr. Ellison/Mr. Henley to wikipedia? Cocolee2 (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: No, we do not need affadavits from Oracle executives. We need verifiable source indicating the notability of Yash Talrej. On claim is that this patent, in combination with the Oracle Payments product provides notability. I see several problems, but the biggest of all is that there is no documentation of your assumption. Your implication that the fact that Oracle spent money reseqarching it mean that ot must be in use. Let me assure you that companies do flush money into a project only to abandoin, shelve, or make very minor use of it. It happens. -- Whpq (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: But the product has survived the test of time, it is being sold for last 10 years and has been implemented not once but at many, MANY (thousands) of customer sites--it is not an internal project but a software product--and so there have been several very large and successful deployments. Would it help if we (me and my other co-authors) added verifiable, large deployments? Coolguyfromwest (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

*Comment: added 7 references to field implementations; about 20 to 40 additional references can easily be provided. So our assertion is that (i) A key sets of inventions was made by Mr. Talreja (ii) that set of inventions is implemented in Oracle Payments (formerly known as Oracle iPayment) whose development was led by Mr. Talreja for first three releases (iii) Oracle Payment (iPayment) is a successful product which has been deployed at thousands of customer sites in last 9 years since its inception in 1998.Coolguyfromwest (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It is interesting that the last three Keep pleas have come from single purpose accounts, as their first and only contributions. Keeper | 76 20:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP I am the co-author of this article, and I do have other contributions to wiki so mine is not a one use account. While I would like this article to be kept, I will very humbly accept the wiki community's decision. Notable is ill-defined, and someone has already commented that parity with other people featured on wiki is not the definition we can or should use for determining notability. So in the absence of a definition, I will accept the community's mandate. Coolguyfromwest (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Blanchardb, thanks for editting the article and cutting it to down to important stuff. I am new at writing articles and appreciate your assistance/ virtual tutoring. Coolguyfromwest (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.207.32.18 — 216.207.32.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• KEEP-KUDOS to Blanchardb for cleaning up the article and deleting all the fluff! Talreja is notable because he is working on some of the more interesting and current stuff. And things have changed since Graham Bell invented the phone, the inventors of at large corporations mostly remain invisible while the corp. makes more money. Cocolee2 (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• COMMENT: To respond to Whpq's comment about doubts about the product's success, added 7 customer/field implementation references, anothr 40 are easily and readily available from a customer base of thousands of customers across the world. Coolguyfromwest (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply - You've missed the point. It's not if Oracle Payments is a successful product. It's the claim that because he is one of the names on a patent for electronic billing, that somehow equates with a significant portion of Oracle payments. In any case, I still fail to see any reliable sources in the article. Shall we go through them?

1. His website is hardly neutral

2. Lowes's special order page: says nothing about him

3. Is a press release which again is hardly neutral

4. A Peoplesoft performance paper: unable to pull it up as the connection times out, but what does it have to do with Yash Talreja

5. The Oracle Payments product page: makes no mention of Yash Talreja

6. An article about Oracle Payments in Oracle's own magazine: it's hardly neutral, and it doesn't mention Yash Talreja anyways

7. A powerpoint presentation which doesn't mention Yash Talreja

8. An Oracle press release that doesn't mention Yash Talreja

9. A web message board posting which doesn't mention Yash Talreja

10. A blog posting about Oracle Payments with no mention of Yash Talreja

11. An Oracle hosted message board posting which doesn't mention Yash Talreja

12. Promotional literature from another company's integration to Oracle Paymements which again does not mention Yash Talreja

13. A press release from MessageGate about the appointment of two executives, one of which is Yash Talreja, but press releases are not independent reliable sources

14. A Televoke press reelease about hiring Yash Talreja, but again, press releases are not independent reliable sources

15. A unicode consortium listing which simply confirms that he is a member, but membership in such an organistion doesn't confer notability, since as far as I can tell, one just needs to pay a membership fee to join.

16. IIT Dehlhi Excellence Foundation appears to be an alumni network. Being a graduate of IIT Delhi doesn't confer notability.

17. The patent which lists Yash Talreja as one of the people on the patent. But a patent itself confers not notability.

So after going through all 17 reeferences, most are about Oracle Payments with no mention of Yash Talreja. So despite all the references, I do not see how the article has reliable sources that can establish notability, and provide verifiability. And I've conducted my own searches and can turn up only press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Look, the references to Oracle Payments were added to prove that it is a successful product in repsonse to your specific comment Your implication that the fact that Oracle spent money reseqarching it mean that ot must be in use. Let me assure you that companies do flush money into a project only to abandoin, shelve, or make very minor use of it. It happens. -- Whpq (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)" (above). the references prove that the project was not abandoned ,shelved or used in a minor way.

I will definitely go through each of your point and cross link it with each of the wiki-definitions for verifiability, referencebility etc. and I agree that some of the referencability is two step (Talreja-> linked to a mega patent -> linked to an Oracle Product which is hugely sucessful) but I believe it not only meets wiki-definitions, but actually meet the legal criteria of "beyond reasonable doubt" :-)

However, I have a holiday to celebrate, (and probably so do you) and I think both of us have made our points, let's give other editors a chance to comment.Coolguyfromwest (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Greetings: Oh, and Whpq, Happy Holidays! this discusion is serving as a good tutorial on wiki-gebility of articles for me. Coolguyfromwest (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Interesting discussion. taking a clue from Blanchardb-^{HimHisEarsHisMouth}, I went ahead and cleaned up the article. To be fair to the author, he is new and he tried to answer Whpq's challenge by adding references to the article, rather than quoting those sources here.

FWIW, after researching the things for a while, I ended up creating a separate article on Oracle Payments because I believe it's a notable product. I removed all blogs and press releases for Oracle Payment and added references which follow wiki's guidelines about being independent, neutral and verifiable.

I also removed all references to press releases and blogs in the Articles on Talreja, but included news/magazine articles (not press releases) in Seattle PI and "Windows and Door magazine" which I found at Google News--these are minor but do provide an independent, verifiable and neutral proof for Talreja's executive positions at those organizations which is part of the article, and as per guidelines quoted by Whpq, should be backed up by independent, verifiable sources.

Does individual (not corporate) membership of Unicode Consortium add to one's notability? It is a *very* famous organization, has a wiki entry and has *less than* 50 individual members (rest being all big Corporations such as Oracle Corporation, Google, HP and even governments such as India and Pakistan). I am personally impressed by that, but obviously, your opinion may vary.

I did not remove the link to IIT Delhi Excellence Foundation since it does provide an independent and reliable way for verifying author's claim that Talreja is an IIT Delhi Alum which itself is notable by some standards, though definitely not enough by itself to justify a wikientry. Here is the catch 22, unless every statement in the article is backed by a independent, verifiable source, it is subject to being shot down. However, if references are included which *just* establish that the statement made in the article is true and add to notability, but do not establish notability, it is then itself becomes a reason for deletion? Jennlopez (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC) — Jennlopez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Oh, Whpq, I *was* able to download the .pdf file, it is a 31 page technical document which acknowledges Talreja as a contributor, and verifies that he was indeed an executive at PeopleSoft. It is verifiable and reliable; We have to believe that Talreja did not control the majority of such a large Corporation, so even though technically its not independent, in my book, it is. YMMV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennlopez (talk • contribs)

KEEP: Participation in a key set of 52 inventions (verifiable by an independent, reliable USPTO entry) which has resulted in a very successful (success verifiable by independent, reliable sources) Product meets my definition of notability. No large Technology company recognizes individual contributors behind their products so Talreja is actually lucky to actually have a verifiable, even though a two step link. And yes, I believe that since the invention was assigned to Oracle Corporation, and the Oracle Payments debuted around the same time when the invention was filed, and the product has extremely similar characteristics and features to the patent, that the product is an implementation of the patent. (I spent time matching them)

So Unless we believe Larry Ellison or Jeff Henley personally invented everything coming of Oracle Corporation, world's second largest company, they should not be only two Oraclites on wikipedia.

Participation in construction and release of another great product m2o which is also successfully deployed at Lowe's and some other references under [[m2o-- and Individual Membership in Unicode Consortium is icing on the cake. and yes, even verifiable, independent connection with IIT Delhi makes one more notable in Silicon Valley then three published articles in some arcane journal.

No software developer/Technologist in the commercial software domain will have any stronger evidence then noted in this article, so unless we restrict wikipedia only to actors, writers, athletes politicians and academic researchers (who usually just generate a whole lot of paper, nothing useful), and outcast inventors of some of the most useful products and applications, we should accept this.Rajeev22 (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC) — Rajeev22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. Sandahl 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personality clone

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

Unreferenced, original research Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, cannot be verified in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC).
• Delete as original research -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete for now. Kudos to the author for continuing to work on the article, and I apologize for the community that your first talkpage message is a deletion notice and not a welcome message. I'll fix that next. Use the welcome message to link to helpful pages that could assist your writing, including how to properly cite an article. As it stands, the article still doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. This discussion will be here for a few days, the best way to keep the article is to prove that the term personality clone is widespread (not just Dr. Doolittle), notable, and verifiable in third party sources that explain what it is, why it's important, and such. Keeper | 76 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. In my opinion, the phrase "personality clone" does not really have any independent existence. It is merely one word modifying another, like "red book", and not a notable coining such as "red tide". As far as I can determine via Google, when the phrase is used, the writer tends to mean just what would be expected from the meanings of the individual words (and probably the phrase has been so used since the popularization of clone). The only unusual usage appears to belong to an item of computer software, Saberdata's "PC Personality Clone", but that is not the topic of this article. I sympathize with the author, and expect it will not be too hard to find numerous examples of the phrase in use, but suspect that it will be very difficult to show notability. Tim Ross·^talk 19:53, 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 keep. Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 17:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Abney

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

American football player who was on the books of the Baltimore Ravens and the Chicago Bears, but released by both without playing a game. Currently a free agent, according to the article. The only other information included is from his days at university. Non notable for never having played a game, and now seemingly unlikely to. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No recent activity, and I agree that he probably won't. Also non-notable in the first place. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as an athlete who is not played a game in top league of his sport. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep - changing to keep in light of the report of NCAA records. Note that none of this is in the article itself, and wouild need to be a bit more specific than a by-the-way mention of NCAA records with no details. As such I've tagged the article with {{unref}}. -- Whpq (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep based on college records alone, despite his lack of NFL playing time. This article says he set 5 NCAA records in 2002. Perhaps he is notable based on his college-level accomplishments at a division one school? He already has mention in a Wikipedia article to verify. Also this USAtoday article confirms at least one of his records, and would serve as an independent source. Keeper | 76 21:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - as per above. Alex (talk) 15:27, 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 Delete --JForget 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Krabby patty formula

Krabby patty formula (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable food product from SpongeBob SquarePants, no real-world application. Corvus cornix_talk 23:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable aspect of a fictional world, pure trivia/fancruft. (Never mind the fact that I hate SpongeBob with a passion...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, trivial fancruft --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete not sure if there is one but there really should be a speedy catagory for this type of article. Ridernyc (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, what, for fiction that isn't taught in literature classes? We fight over notability for the most minor academics, and dismiss something watched by 10 million people a week as trivia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • And why not? How does a bunch of people watching a show confer notability to the most inane details about said show? JuJube (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. (And we don't want Sheldon J. Plankton to get the recipe, now do we?) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Recipes for fictional foods don't really have any application in the real world, and it isn't central to the show. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the non-trivial parts to one of the articles on Spongebob Squarepants. I'll do it. We have lots of fictional food articles, but the recipe is Krusty Kruft. :-) Bearian (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How about merging to Bikini_Bottom#Krusty_Krab? Bearian (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, delete away. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Huckabee

UPDATED the bio (LEAD) on Dec 19th, and would ask the Deletes, and Merges to reassess. EvanCarroll (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Notability - this is an entry about two relatively minor stories which are only notable because they involve MIKE Huckabee. The stories are briefly noted on Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign page. There does not need to be a David Huckbaee biography page. Also, the page contains no other information about David besides the two incidents. Paisan30 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Entirely non notable. Even in the highly unlikely event that his father happens to lose the Presidential election because his son once, allegedly, killed a dog, that does not merit the son having his own entry. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, David Hucakbee's exploits are becoming fodder in his father's opponents' campaigns. Corvus cornix_talk 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As far as I can tell there are 3 possible guideline violations 1. Secondary coverage is trivial 2. Only notable because related to someone famous 3. Notable for a single event. I think a case could be made for any of these, but the fact is he is getting significant national press coverage for a number of past events, and because of this his notability is not only because he is related to someone famous, but because of the actions he has done in relation to that famous person. So I'd have to say keep. Joshdboz (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For reasons said -- this guy was written about before the pres campaign. And there is nothing wrong with deriving fame from slaughtering dogs, and getting arrested at air ports. Think of his relation to Mike, as the icing on the cake. EvanCarroll (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the original nomination. Regardless of whether you accept all accusations at face value, notability is not really established by not being charged with a crime and then by committing a crime that the Little Rock police (in the reference for the story) call very common (this is Arkansas, everyone has a gun and there is no evidence that he was trying to misuse his weapon). He is clearly only "notable" because he's related to someone famous and, what's more, he's really only notable because this is an election year. Lordjeff06 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As much as I'd like to see this article gone, I think that the presumption of non-notability has been sufficiently rebutted by the citations included in the article. --Elliskev 13:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• More now than ever before -- thanks. EvanCarroll (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The subject is only notable because he is related to somebody famous, in this case to Mike Huckabee. If the information given in the article deserves to be mentioned at all, it should be done in the main page for Mike Huckabee himself. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Mike Huckabee- The issue is starting to get enough traction that it merits keeping the information if its presented in the context of his father's campaign, but it doesn't really warrant its own article yet. If further information comes in down the line, I wouldn't oppose it being split off again. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Mike Huckabee. If and when David Huckabee becomes more notable in his own right, he can have an article then. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Smerge (selectively merge) with Mike Huckabee. This person fails WP:BIO and the article only exists because he is related to a presidential candidate. The refs are generally lacking in reliability and independence, or are passing reference or directory listings. Also per WP:BLP1E. Edison (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The bio does not add anything to his notability. A silly Arkansas State newspaper story from 2001; the fact that he was prom king; the fact that he's a mortgage broker; and interviews from his college years. Also, the fact that he has been reimbursed by the Huckabee campaign fund is not notable, unless there is some allegation of wrongdoing. Candidates reimburse people for campaign expenses all the time. Paisan30 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Neither incident would be notable if his name weren't Huckabee (and are only marginally notable as it is), so if the content is to be included it should be on the page of the only notable person to whom it is relevant, namely Mike Huckabee. A.J.A. (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I just read the "updated" version and he's still not notable. My recomendation remains delete. A.J.A. (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as an extremely well-sourced bio, famous for multiple incidents, not just one news item. Likely to become more notable in the near future, and probably the research topic of many a college or high school student. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Bearian, are you sure we are talking about the same person? Even if he were to pass muster on "Likely to become more notable in the near future", unfortunately then - that point in the future - is the moment that you should say to yourself "Now this guy needs a Wiki bio". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Also, just because a story is well-sourced does not mean it deserves to have its own page. I think it sets a lousy precedent, with an election year coming up. Paisan30 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• You both have points, but maybe I'm just saying he seems notable. Weak keep? Bearian (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to think of less people that claim, "if only it wasn't for his dad he wouldn't be notable". Who cares? Even if that was so, does it really matter? Someone isn't notable because they are member of a bloodline, they are notable because they have attributed sources all over the place, even if that is largely because of their bloodline. This guy has three sketchy and controversial incidents on his record, he is the son of a powerful man, has stated intent to go into politics, and as you said, "we have facts on him".

WP:PAPER. We are not a paper encyclopedia. We have no reason to remove this. COATRACK is not a policy for just this reason. There is no good reason to remove a well attributed, wikilinked article, because of some devout republicans opinions on notability. FYI: If someone garnishes enough attention to warrant numerous people to write about a single event, you will be hardpressed to find an admin to strike the article. In addition I can't see a reasonable way for you to merge information pertaining to David's college political track record and achievements into other articles. Take this scenario, what if he killed another dog, and what if he brought another gun to the airport.. Presumably he would get much more press than the first time around, would it then be notable -- because you can bet no matter how many K-9s die, each and every report will introduce David as the son of Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. EvanCarroll (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying he's only notable because ogf his dad. Then he would be notable, like Barbara Pierce Bush. My point is he's not notable. A.J.A. (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Who is a devout Republican? Me? That's funny. I am an Independent, and not a Huckabee supporter in any way, shape or form. Regardless, I don't think it's a good idea to start a biography on his son based on a couple of screw-ups in his life. Nor do I think that a college interview shows an "intent to go into politics". If there were some indication that he was seriously considering that, it would be a different story. Paisan30 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, I am not from Arkansas, nor a Republican, nor a Baptist. So I have no axe to grind, at least not here. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:COATRACK. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete David Huckabee is nobody. The material touching on Mike Huckabee MAYBE should go on the campaign page or main page of Mike Huckabee. If the main page of MH, then preferably not in the criticism section of Mike Huckabee, but rather within the first full term subsection of the governorship. Summarize it. No more than four sentences, tops. But even then, I am not sure if it is notable for Mike Huckabee. Jmegill (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why summarize it? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. All sourced, notable information can go on an appropriate page. You agree the material touching on Mike Huckabee is notable, and yet you ask we truncate the information on the subject. Definitly not the Zeitgeist of wikipedia. EvanCarroll (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• The point here is that an entire biography of an otherwise non-notable person was constructed around ONE story in Newsweek. That is the only "sourced" story that has any newsmaking potential. Adding all kinds of crap about his misdemeanor arrest (not related to Mike), his college days and the fact that his dad's campaign owed him $1,000 does not make him any more or less notable. Paisan30 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as noted, wikipedia is not paper, and especially remember that WP:COATRACK is not a policy, not a guideline, not even part of the MoS. It has no more vaue than me arguing for keep on the ground that it respects Wikipedia:No Blurry Images.--Aldux (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Mike Huckabee, even with the incidents and the fact that it family-related to one of the Republican presidential front-runners, he is not notable enough for an individual article.--JForget 01:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- Whatever one might think of David Huckabee and his importance or lack thereof, he is the child of a noted individual, and frankly, Wiki seems to allow that.Kitchawan (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BIO, "That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article; see Relationships do not transfer notability." A.J.A. (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting, this is in reference to people creating articles for wives and such for what is generally considered blah-information. Such as birth date, death date, and children - things that apply to every human. If the person has done anything newsworthy in their life they are subject to a biography -- if the news has sketchy worthiness such as mentioned in one publication only then it becomes sketchy. Either way, neither of these two policies apply here.

If you have information about notable kids, then they get their own wikipedia page. Look at Cheslsea Clinton (!8 references), Neil Bush (17 References), Marvin P. Bush (2 refs), Dorothy Bush Koch (3 References). I haven't read any of these articles, but the same rules you argue here generally speaking shouldn't apply to them. Being related to someone famous mean you get the limelight, doing anything different means you get notability in wikipedia's eyes. EvanCarroll (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are children of Presidents, not candidates (I guess Chelsea is both). If David Huckabee did anything notable, it would be fine to have a page for him. Getting arrested for a misdemeanor and dismissed as a Boy Scout counselor hardly qualifies. And a single story in Newsweek does not change anything, even if someone suggested that his father helped him out of trouble. Paisan30 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between someone was dismissed from boy scouts, and someone who expelled as a camp councilor for torturing a dog; but at the same time, you differentiate between the chief executive of a nation, and the chief executive of a state, then you seriously need help. You're direction and arguments are laughable. You've failed to achive consensus, now kindly give up. EvanCarroll (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No need for that kind of tone. I haven't insulted you, I've simply stated my arguments. I think it's clear that you are wound up about the dog torture allegations, which I certainly understand. I think that someone who would torture an animal should be getting some serious therapy. That has nothing to do with whether David Huckabee is a notable person. Paisan30 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Bearian and others, this person exceeds our standards for inclusion set forth by the WP:BIO guidelines. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:44, 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 for the time being, but the best course of action here is to clean up List of The Land Before Time characters. Much of the information in each character's article is either trivial or fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and a reasonable length article could be compiled from the relevant information in each of these articles. I will re-visit these articles in a month or so and unless they have gained real-world RS to prove notability, will redirect them to the characters article.BLACKKITE 15:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Littlefoot

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

Fails WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no current assertion for dealing with the in-universe material which provide a combination of unnecessary detailed plot information resulting in numerous instances of trivia and/or fan speculation. I would recommend cleaning up the current elaborate character lists (characters, families, villains), expand them the right way, then cite its sources with real world information.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Cera (The Land Before Time) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ducky (The Land Before Time) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Petrie (The Land Before Time) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Spike (The Land Before Time) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Chomper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ruby (The Land Before Time) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mr. Thicknose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sharptooth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 23:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all as fancruft, trivia, and just generally indiscriminate info. I agree with the nominator here, the existing character lists should be cleaned up instead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source. Well-known characters in a well-received series of videos. They have action figures. Corvus cornix_talk 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you really think that these characters can all be sourced in reliable sources? I really really doubt it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wouldn't any other character from a 13-edition movie series, action figures and video games be notable? Corvus cornix_talk 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes if real world information to establish notability is present or they're rather lengthy for merging. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 00:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I and many other people would agree that these articles, although could stand for improvement, are vital points of information to the Wikipedia. The Land Before Time franchise is a multi-million dollar opperation, so I think it is safe to assume that this is a popular article. user 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Clean up, Do not delete I think it is absurd that you would get rid of these articles! Wikipedia is about information on subjects, and the Land Before Time is a popular franchise, and therefor is important to wikipedia repitoire of articles. I do agree, the articles could be improved, but these are important and should not be so blatantly deleted as an overall catagory.

Annonymous 16:52 19 December 2007

• Comment. For some reason, Bowser Jr. Nutt has tried to remove this discussion from the log. [1]. Who knows why. I have restored it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't delete that article. Only deleted the part I was going to write down for each segment. If I did, I appologise for it was unintentional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowser Jr. Nutt (talk • contribs) 22:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep in mind this is not a vote, but it is advised that the edit history be checked for this page. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Clean up, but do not delete. I vote for keeping the character articles, but cleaning up and expanding them. There's no less reason for these articles to exist than there is for there to be articles devoted to other fictional characters.

On the subject of getting citations for these articles, surely the official website and DVD extra features could be used?

K00bine (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

this article requires real world context and for that it would need something besides primary sources. See WP:Plot and WP:RS. So in your short no it can not use just the official website and DVD as sources. Ridernyc (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Keep and cleanup. Same for all the other articles you nominated. cf38^talk 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all, notable. List of characters is long enough, and the major characters should have more extended coverage. Everyking (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

notability is not the issue real context is. Ridernyc (talk) 11:24, 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.   jj137 ^♠ 00:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coleraine College

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

College page that doesn't assert any notability and provides very little information. Mikemill (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete After getting into its difficult-to-find website, I conclude that this isn't a college in the sense of post-secondary education. It has 500 "pupils" and 45 staff. It's not entitled to any more deference than the average high school. Mandsford (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source - If my highschool has managed to source a Article well enough, Im sure this can also be sourced well enough. (and no that isnt a othercrap argument) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course that school at least tries to make some claim to notibility. Mikemill (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • <sarcastic> not very well ... my highschool wasnt good at doing a lot of things if memory recalls<sarcasticend> Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not entitled to any less deference than the average high school. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So we should keep articles that fail WP:CORP Just because other articles exist that would also fail? Mikemill (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, as I look at the article now, it meets WP:CORP criteria with multiple, independent, reliable sources cited in the article. Perhaps that wasn't the case when Mikemill added his comment. Noroton (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nominator Mikemill (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as really marginal per my standards. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Specifically, it is a fairly new amalgamated school, with no evidence that it is an Accredited Private school, no mention of notable alumni, no reliable sources, and no mentioned notable academic programs, major annual events, or scholastic sports (although the motto implies all of that). Bearian (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable, fact-checked, independent sources show up that establish any notability of this particular school. Please note that I typically advocate to keep schools based on simply existing, but this particular one does not meet my (very lenient) standards. Keeper | 76 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agree needs more work, website link in article so not that difficult to find! Agree with Phil Bridger. Paste (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the way forward with these articles on amalgamated schools is to wrap up the history of all three schools in the one page. Separate searches show sufficient material. I'll add some sourced content in due course. TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It would have been much more helpful if the nominator had instead put a notability tag on the article. A five-day AfD a few days before Christmas is not easy to handle. The situation is complicated here because the school has only recently been amalgamated. As TerriersFan explains it is therefore necessary to search for all three school names. It is apparent that sufficient sources exist, and notability can easily be proven. Dahliarose (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since WP:N criteria are already (barely) met with multiple, independent, reliable sources cited in the article. I also agree with TerriersFan's and Dahliarose's comments above. Noroton (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above, meets WP:N criteria and should gradually improve over time. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a fairly typcial article on a secondary school. It has had a work done on it in the past day or two and is tagged "under construction", which suggests it may be improved. The consensus seems to be that secondary schools usually are notable, so that the decision that one was not would raise POV issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 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 Delete.   jj137 ^♠ 23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandra Silvers

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

PROD contested at DRV, the original PROD reason was a lack of notability. This would be procedural, but I don't exactly see how this subject meets WP:PORNBIO. Search engine tests were inconclusive because of a good amount of irrelevant hits. Coredesat 22:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - lacks the necessary RSs to establish notability. BlueValour (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is written like an advert. No reliable sources cited or found for WP:NPOV or evidence of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per rationale already stated above. Keeper | 76 21:47, 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, non notable element of a fictional film. Sandahl 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Divided

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

This article has no notability or sourcing, and as such is just plot repetition of the Wild Wild West storyline and has no notability outside of that article. As such, this is just duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a feature in a not-very-popular 2 hour film that was in theaters in 1998. Mandsford (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no indpendent notability aside from being an element of of a film -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge any relevant content back to the film's page. Being that this is, in fact, fictional, it doesn't meet those standards either. This should have been deleted long ago. Keeper | 76 21:51, 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.   jj137 ^♠ 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Choices (play)

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

Delete nn play by playwriter who was deleted as nn here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: the "most impressive play" of a non notable author does not seem that impressive... Goochelaar (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources. A Google search for "Isabelle Junot" +Choices has only 3 results which consist of the deleted article on the auther, this article, and an irrelevant Amazon UK link. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom's rationale. Keeper | 76 21:54, 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.   jj137 ^♠ 23:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Staunton Island Military Base (Liberty City)

Staunton Island Military Base (Liberty City) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional military base. Article doesn't have any content beyond the list of two games in which the base has appeared. Pagrashtak 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 22:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. It really isn't notable within the video game, either. 71.111.90.58 (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Crap you probably could have just redirected it without going through this process. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons here. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:FICT. Non-notable specific in-universe location. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not even notable in game much less out of game -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete quite agree with Whpq, we have large articles for the fictional cities in the GTA universe, there's zero need for further splintering let alone a couple of sentences stuck under an article heading. Get rid. Someone another (talk) 12:46, 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. Wizardman 00:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special triangle ratio

Special triangle ratio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is an interesting try, and it kept me happy for an hour checking it out, but I'm afraid it's rather something made up one day (the few Google hits are not about this), and the conclusion is wrong. There is an infinite number of such triangles, for any value of φ from 1 to the Golden ratio (1 + √5 ) / 2 = 1.618 approx.; and they are not particularly special or interesting: not worth an article. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree: delete, as it does not seem to have an autonomous existence out of this article. Goochelaar (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Google shows no evidence this exists outside of Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non-notable, no reliable sources found (in article, or on mathsci), and it seems unlikely the original had a reliable source, since the main conclusion appears to be false (per nom; one is just finding solutions x=a/b=b/c to x-1 < 1/x < x+1, and both x=1 and x=3/2 are clearly solutions, but the article claims a unique solution x=1). JackSchmidt (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just an exercise in high-school math, and the solution is not even correct! And, even if one were to fix it, it still would not cut the mustard. I mean, one can make up gazillion such exercises — why would they rate an article, unless there was some literature behind it to establish notability? Turgidson (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Aaaaargh! on a second look, I am kicking myself - this is dead simple and doesn't need trigonometry. The question is, can we construct a triangle with sides 1, φ, φ² ? and the answer is, yes, we can make a triangle from any three lengths, provided only that the sum of the two shorter sides is greater than the third side, 1 + φ > φ², the limiting case being 1 + φ = φ² which gives φ = (1 + √5 ) / 2. JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• So it's when φ < (1 + √5 ) / 2 that there is a non-degenerate solution with φ ≥ 1. And if we allow φ < 1, then φ² : φ : 1 = 1 : ψ : ψ² with ψ > 1, so we get the same shape as one we had with φ > 1. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Patent nonsense. The bottom-line conclusion of this article is that only the equilateral triangle is a solution to this equation. Obviously false. Now a question is whether some revision of the article could save it. Should there be an article about triangles that solve this equation? Maybe if some interesting result concerning such triangles were given, that would be the case. But in it's present form, the article is worthless. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:28, 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 Keep. Hut 8.5 11:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super-prime

Super-prime (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable term with dictionary definition. A Google search [2] finds many different things called "super-prime" but none of them appear notable enough as an article subject, and our definition seems rare. The source is a programming exercise. I have also seen such primes called prime-index-prime, but not enough to be notable. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Commment I'm not aware of any significance to this-- as defined here, super-primes are the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 11th, etc. prime numbers. Mandsford (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems kind of shallow, as mathematics goes, but I found an article on this sequence in a good journal (JACM), and OEIS calls this sequence "nice". I expanded the article to include this new information. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per David. Paul August ☎ 03:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, mention in a good journal, worthy of a mention here. J Milburn (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I mean, this is not great mathematics, but it's kind of a cute notion, and has generated some activity (as explained by David Eppstein). I would be leery of having a separate page for every single sequence in OEIS, but this looks like one of middling interest, maybe worth keeping and seeing how it develops. Hopefully, more could be added to the article, though—as is, it's rather skimpy. Turgidson (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. After looking at the subject a bit more, and after making a couple of edits, I'm not sure this is the most appropriate name for the article: Prime-index primes seems more accurate and descriptive, or perhaps, Primes with prime subscripts (as in the original article by Dressler and Parker, and in the OEIS). One can also give a recursive definition of prime-...-prime index primes, and also palindromic-index primes, etc. Maybe it would make sense to rewrite the article from a more general point of view (various subsequences of primes, with indices given by some rule involving primes, or some property of numbers)? There are a couple of refs out there that I put in (Fernandez, OEIS), but it would be good to see first whether there is something more substantial (say, listed on MathSciNet, or available on the arXiv) before going out on a limb. Any suggestions? Turgidson (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep thanks to David Eppstein's work. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Can the "orphaned" template be removed? I don't understand why that is relevant and I'm not sure I care. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  It's clearly going to be a Keep so I have added the section List of prime numbers#Super-primes with a link, and removed {{orphan}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:27, 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. Kurykh 01:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straight Face

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

A disambig page that has a broken link to a non-notable jazz musician and a link to an article that doesn't mention the subject of the disambig page Mangostar (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, uesless dab page. Probably grounds for a speedy. J Milburn (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. DAB pages link to established Wikipedia articles. This DAB page links to exactly nothing relevant. Keeper | 76 22:24, 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 deleted by me because of BLP concerns. We can't have an unsourced article about a (potentially) real person calling him a murderer. J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damond Meekins

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

This article is almost verbatim for the page on serial killer Richard Chase, including dates, victims and associated literature/media- a Google search for Damond Meekins pulls up a 1up page (1up.com) for a 22 year old male living in Richmond, VA - could it be a personal page meant to mirror that of a serial killer's? I'm new to this so I'm open to suggestions! Diggsjj (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as copy of Richard Chase but with the name changed. Possibly speediable as vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:51, 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 per WP:CSD#G4. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will MacKinley

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

A self-published author (see publisher details at amazon: [3] and the publisher's website [4] who is insufficiently notable. Also, a probable copyvio of [5] (a bit more complicated than a simple copyvio though)so will be sent to WP:CP if not deleted here. CIreland (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Already been deleted once this month - why not speedy G4? JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I'm not an admin and didn't see the first creation, I didn't know whether it was substantially the same article. CIreland (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Oddly, Suckeriddy, the author of the article has written "I do hold copyright on this artical" on its talk page [6]. Doesn't seem to grasp the point about Wikipedia. As the article is likely self-written, I can only hope that the spelling is better in his books than on the article's talk page. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G4, as substantially unchanged re-creation. Jeez, I hate having to !vote twice in one month on the same load of crap. If this is re-created again, it should be salted. Deor (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. The issue seems to be whether patents confirm notability and reliable sources rather than whether or not he is notable. If there's been prior discussion on this topic let me know, otherwise now would be a nice time to look into this. Wizardman 05:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georges Lakhovsky

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

No reliable sources. Google Scholar gives a lot of patents (not acceptable as sources), and index-links [A few journals get indexed by the usual sites, but are not notable enough for anyone to go through the bother of giving abstracts, etc. So you just get the journal, author, and title listed.] There's nothing we could use to make a balanced, encyclopædic article. I suppose we could just cut it down to a permanent stub or something, but I was of the impression we didn't like to do that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The patents themselves aren't evidence of the utility of the patented device, but the existence of the patents, and the modern patents building on his quakery"work" speak to notability. Mykej (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know - that seems a pretty tenuous link to notability, and if we don't have enough resources to write a good article, it's hard to see how that's sufficient. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Patents are not really evidence of notability; they are merely evidence someone has filed a patent, paid the fee, and met the (low) legal threshold for patentability. LeContexte (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The mere award of patents does not prove notability--most patents are never exploited Notable quacks are of course notable, but there is no evidence of this either. Minor and unimportant pseudoscience. DGG (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Patents only really become notable if they are found to be enforceable. Evidence for that would be if substantial royalties were paid to the inventor or if a court decided in favour of the inventor in a dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep to err on the side of caution. Scientific credibility (Lakhovsky seems to have none) does not equal notability (Lakhovsky seems to have a little). There may not be anything online to make a good article of this, but there may be other sources. --Lockley (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I'd also point to the German-language wiki page as evidence of some international reputation. --Lockley (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep The claim "no reliable sources" cannot be correct. Patents are legitimate sources (though not evidence of notability). The subject's published articles are also a legitimate source. Nor is it appropriate to object the fact that Googling produces lists of articles on subscription-required sites. I am not qualified to comment on the subject's notability, but the answer to a dearth of cited sources is to tag it for citations to be provided, not to tag it for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 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 Delete--JForget 01:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penelope Wright

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

The article claims that this actor is a television star, but I can't find any reliable independent sources to verify that she meets the notability criteria. Since it's been speedied and recreated several times, and since it does technically contain an assertion of notability, I thought I'd run it by the community. Whad'ya think? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• this is a genuine article about a young television actress it may be seen as un-important but as people keep adding it and it just gets deleted i think you should leave it on just for sakes otherwise you are just going to have to be permanetly deleting it ,which is a waste of wikipedias time beacuse at least the information on this page is true (well hopefully) and more reliable then on many other pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxiccixx (talk • contribs) 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC) — Xxiccixx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete as non-notable actor; one single Google hit associates her with the show she apparently appears on, and there appears to be no other reliable sources available. Considering the statement of intent to keep reposting above, a dose of salt might be in order, too. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• WP:BLP seems to be the ruling guideline here. In short, we need to get this right, and if it might be the invasion of privacy of a young actress to research the material to expand the article, we should delete, and unless someone can dig up a published interview or the like about her, I'm going to presume that the invasion of privacy would apply, and vote delete. This is not meant, and should not be taken, as a slight to the subject of the article - we just don't want to get it wrong, and either invade her privacy or risk vandals coming along and hurting her reputation. [Crossposted to talk page] Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Searches of the BBC site (linked to in the article) give no information about her, and as Adam Cuerden says - it may not be in the young lady's best interest to have a page about her on wikipedia. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable actor. The article says "Wright has starred in BBC Children's show, Xchange", but checking that article brings up no mention of Wright, despite what looks like a comprehensive list of stars. If the author can come up with some reliable sources to demonstrate notability then that's fine, but otherwise, it should go. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable actor, no sources to be seen. Possible hoax? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• A search of the BBC web site yields 0 hits for anyone of this name at all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there isn'tall that much information on Xchange up on the BBC site. However, an older revision gives her role in the Lion King musical as "a lion cub". This probably means that A. she's quite young, and B. "starring" is a bit of an exaggeration in at least that case. If she's as young as that makes it sound, I'm really uncomfortable with invading her privacy like that - it's all very fun for now, but bad things could come of it later. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete likely a hoax if anything Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete there seems to be a spree of PR firms trying to make articles lately. Ridernyc (talk) 02:14, 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. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valea Pietrei Mici River

Valea Pietrei Mici River (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason this article was flagged for deletion indicating that in does not meet notoriety conditions. The Wikiproject Rivers specifically indicates that there are no such criteria applicable to rivers and that there is no minimum size for a river to qualify for deletion. I would kindly request you to delete the tag which is incorrect. Afil (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Major geographical features like rivers tend to be notable. A Google search indicates that sources are out there to verify that the river is real, but they are not in English. As for dicdef, the article is a stub for future expansion when an editor gets to it. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This "major geographical feature" generates 5 hits on Google. All of them from wikipedia. That such features "tend to be notable" does not mean this one is. Policy is not about whether the river is "real" if it isn't notable. It isn't. There is no assertion of notability of any kind and no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm assuming you did a google search of "Valea Pietrei Mici River." Most of the sources are in Romanian (as the river is located in Romania, this shouldn't be a surprise). The word "River" is not Romanian. A google search of "Valea Pietrei Mici" shows 102 hits. --Oakshade (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• And searching minus Wikipedia comes up with 73 hits. Corvus cornix_talk 00:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Geographical features such as rivers are notable. Just a quick g-search shows at least two secondary sources in Romanian (it is in Romania after all). [7][8]. --Oakshade (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Both of those sources mention "Valea Pietrei Mici" in passing. At least one is a blog. Where is the notability in reliable sources? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• On the first one, a whole paragraph is dedicated to this subject, that's more than a "passing mention" and I don't know if the 2nd one is a blog. Here's another more than "passing mention" secondary source [9].--Oakshade (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In that "first one" where a "whole paragraph" is supposedly about this river, I just don't get it. The name is mentioned once, in the second of four sentances. Several other proper nouns pop up. With no translation and no knowledge of reliability, I cannot see how that is "substantial coverage" in "reliable sources".

The new source you list again uses the name once, in with a laundry list of other proper nouns. Again, we are left to guess as to whether this is "substantial coverage" in "reliable sources".

Mdsummermsw (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention, besides these secondary sources, sometimes common sense applies to inherently notable topics such as towns, mountain, rivers, etc, even if the New York Times didn't write 20 articles about those topics. Even WP:NOTABILITY has a "common sense" clause and WP:OUTCOMES specifically mentions rivers as one of these. --Oakshade (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If it's a real river then it's obviously notable. I think finding someone who's Romanian would help here. If only someone would invent a big piece of paper with hills and roads and rivers drawn on it so we could check on this kind of stuff. Nick mallory (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep unless proven that it doesn't exist. Geographic features are by default notable. Corvus cornix_talk 23:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is a river guy, come on. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment like towns rivers fall under it exists so it's notable, I personally prefer a merge to Timişul Sec de Jos River. Secret ^account 00:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Why are people scrabbling around looking for sources when there are already two in the article? Sources don't have to be online, and don't have to be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Sources must be verifiable. See WP:RSUE. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, I have read WP:RSUE and nothing there says that non-English sources are not considered verifiable: "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality." Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I was referring to "Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.

Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation."

To me, this one sentance article could easily be merged and redirected with no loss. As it is, the article is pretty much a dead end, with nothing I've seen hinting that there is more content to come. Looks like the article, such as it is, is going to end up as a "keep". My next comment seeks to solidify the "why" into coherent policy or a guideline. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason "why" is geographical features such as rivers are considered of encyclopedic value. They might not be to you, but they are to scientists, geographers, scholars or any other person interested in this topic. These articles make this online encyclopedia stronger, not weaker. That is what is so good about Wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia. As it's billed as "The sum of all knowledge," there is unlimited bandwidth for useful information. And I take issue that this articles is a "dead end." What towns does it run through? Does it supply water to any of them? Does it provide power? What is the human and geological history of this river? Over time, likely Romanian speakers or people with knowledge on the topic will add to it. Wikipedia is a never ending process and it takes time, sometimes years, for articles to really take shape. --Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "The Valea Pietrei Mici River is a tributary of the Timişul Sec de Jos River in Romania." Not familiar with the Timişul Sec de Jos River? "The Timişul Sec de Jos River is a tributary of the Timiş river in Romania." Don't know the [Timiş river]? "The Timiş River or Timişul Sec River is a tributary of the Ghimbăşel river in Romania." And the [Ghimbăşel river]? That's a big one: "The Ghimbăşel River or Ghimbav River is a tributary of the Olt River in Romania. It is formed at the junction of two headwaters: Pârâul Mare and Pârâul Mic." What towns do they run through/supply water/provide power/geological history? You'll never know from the dicdefs here. The article is a "dead end" because all of the information in these four articles could easily be dumped into Olt River article with no loss of information at all. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite! Should articles like this one expand (but to do that they first have to be KEPT!!!!!!!!), one could learn on which side (left or right) are its tributaries, where is its mouth, what pH the water has, what mineral content it has, etc. Moreover, each river may have its own (unique) biology: fish and crustaceous species, aquaphile insects, etc. You could also learn what the VERY NAME "Valea Pietrei Mici" means!!! And a lot more usefull stuff! Got that?!? Raborg (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please also comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notability:_Cities_.26_towns.2C_Mountains_.26_hills.2C_Rivers_.26_streams.2C_etc.. While I have some problems with this as it is being proposed, it seems to be widespread enough to get some sense of concensous. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd like to say that there should be some minimum notability, say, a river of one kilometer, but until that time, I'd defer to consensus and keep all real rivers. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

See User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of Rivers. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Is it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Bearian once again.  :-) (jarbarf) (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. To nominator: Read the following articles for God's sake: Encyclopedia and Wikipedia. So, imagine this, you`re a f*king Geography student/teacher/whatever or you simply want to know what the f* this "Valea Pietrei Mici" you`ve seen mentioned on a postcard/in a book/tattoed on your girlfriend`s ass/etc. What do you do? To fellow contributors, I apoligize for my my foul mouth. Btw, check out the "attention seeking methods" part here. Raborg (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for your comments on the subject. I was looking at the reliability issue and I am familiar with what wikipedia is and is not. The tattoo on your girlfriend's ass could be explained by reading the article that "Valea Pietrei Mici River" could redirect to. Failing that, you might ask her. In Romanian. The concensous here sure seems to be "keep". I invite all of you to watch User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of Rivers and/or my talk page for attempts to specifically outline something ranging from the proposed "all geographic features are notable" to "regular notability rules apply". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 04:21, 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. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunnydale High

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

No external notability, unreffed. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep being one of the main settings for a worldwide syndicated TV series, yes it lacks sources that confer real world notability and as a consequence would fail WP:FICT, but I'll go with common sense instead.RMHED (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Sunnydale. RMHED (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Sunnydale. This setting is likely nonnotable on its own. The article's shortness also allows for an easy merge without losing any information. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment trouble is, this article could end up a whole lot longer if Sunnydale High School library is merged into it, as is proposed on the articles page. RMHED (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Library article has a lot of content that would be better suited for a buffy wikia than wikipedia. Losing this and merging the rest would solve the fansite and notability problem of the Lib article, and would help another Buffy article to become stronger. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• That makes sense, though as it stands the Sunnydale High article will stick out like a sore unsourced thumb on the Sunnydale article. Hopefully this can be remedied. RMHED (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep & Merge as above,if the suggestion is to merge the library article into the one for the school, and keep the present one expanded with the additional content. It is one of the key locations for a very important series. DGG (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm a little surprised that this article was nominated and not Sunnydale High School library. I could accept merging the two or deleting both; having an article on the library but not the school would seem a little odd to me. I'm not stating a preference for merge/delete just yet as I haven't had time to look at the quality of sources or consider the arguments. --kingboyk (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but trim - the library article should be merged here and the whole trimmed. Not having seen the series, I have no ideawhat else needs merging, but doubt the merit of having multiple articles on a single TV series.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though if omeone wants to make a redirect that's fine, I personally don't see a need for it. Wizardman 19:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sick And Tired (Comedy Special)

Sick And Tired (Comedy Special) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, but more important, utterly non-notable. A comedy special that made it to DVD is not exactly encyclopedic material. Biruitorul (talk) 17:26, 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, Davewild (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect. I don't think a deletion discussion is really needed on this one: we can just redirect this to Wanda Sykes, without prejudice to recreation if sufficient sourced information for an article is introduced, later. AndyJones (talk) 14:06, 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.

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. --Polaron | Talk 19:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sky Gardens

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

Delete another nn building under construction in Dubai Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment This building is on the list of tallest buildings in Dubai. Its deletion may hinder the passing of the list to featured status. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable construction, one of many such in Dubai. They don't need or warrant individual articles, the list is the best place for them. RMHED (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as I believe the building is/will be notable in the near future, and I also believe that sources exist to document that fact. If I cannot find them, I'll change to delete - but, I have to think that the article is sourceable. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and add footnotes. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but add references. Rai-me 00:14, 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 Keep. Hut 8.5 11:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sama Tower

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

Delete another nn under construction bulding in Dubai Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment This building is on the list of tallest buildings in Dubai. Its deletion may hinder the passing of the list to featured status. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable construction, one of many such in Dubai. They don't need or warrant individual articles, the list is the best place for them. RMHED (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the construction of the building set a new record, so I don't see how it's nn. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The page was expanded with detailed and important information. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - One of the tallest buildings in one of the world's economically important cities. Secondary independent sources cover this. --Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. The page is well-referenced with reliable sources, and the fact that the building set a construction record is certainly notable. Rai-me 00:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep apparently this is an n under construction bulding in Dubai. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:59, 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. Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 13:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Churchill Residency

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

Delete another nn under construction building in Dubai Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment This building is on the list of tallest buildings in Dubai. Its deletion may hinder the passing of the list to featured status. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable construction, one of many such in Dubai. They don't need or warrant individual articles, the list is the best place for them. RMHED (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep building listed on List of tallest buildings in Dubai, after completition will be listed on List of tallest buildings in the world and List of tallest buildings in the United Arab Emirates on fair positions. --Jklamo (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and add footnotes. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but add references. Rai-me 00:13, 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 Keep.   jj137 ^♠ 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al Tayer Tower

Al Tayer Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete another under construction nn building in Dubai Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment This building is on the list of tallest buildings in Dubai. Its deletion may hinder the passing of the list to featured status. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable construction, one of many such in Dubai. RMHED (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep building listed on List of tallest buildings in Dubai, after completition will be listed on List of tallest buildings in the world and List of tallest buildings in the United Arab Emirates on fair positions. --Jklamo (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and add footnotes. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 01:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Will be one of the tallest buildings in one of the most economically important cities in the world. Is sourced. --Oakshade (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I have added important information and many sources to the article. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per recent changes made by Leitmanp. Article is now very well-referenced. Rai-me 00:15, 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 keep. Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 13:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damas Tower 2

Damas Tower 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete nn future building in Dubai. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This building is not a future building in Dubai, it is almost complete. Second, when completed it will be the 117th tallest building in the world, along with its twin Angsana Hotel & Suites 1. Also, this building is going up along Sheikh Zayed Road, one of the most important stretches of land for skyscrapers. This important building is in a city that is important for business, sport and travel all over the world, Dubai. Fourth, the deletion of this article may hinder the passing of the list of tallest buildings in Dubai to featured status. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete only the 117 tallest in the world, non-notable imo. RMHED (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Just List of tallest buildings in the world is listing 200 tallest in the world and all of them have articles. --Jklamo (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, if being one of the tallest buildings in the world does not satisfy you, I should let you know that this building will be the eighth tallest building in Dubai once it is completed in early 2008. Being number 8 sounds very notable, especially for a city that is considered the fastest growing in the world, that is extremely imporant in the international economy, and is one of the most imporant cities for skyscraper construction. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep building listed on List of tallest buildings in Dubai, after completition will be listed on List of tallest buildings in the world and List of tallest buildings in the United Arab Emirates on fair positions. --Jklamo (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and add footnotes. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 01:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but add references. Any building that will stand among the top 200 tallest in the world is notable IMO. Rai-me 00:19, 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. BLACKKITE 17:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al Habtoor Tower

Al Habtoor Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about a nn future building Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable construction, one of many such in Dubai. RMHED (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep only a stub for a potentially significant structure --OOODDD (talk) 06:52, 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 delete. Kurykh 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xilisoft Corporation

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

I believe this is a non-notable company. Original author removed a speedy notice and a prod notice without adding any documentation of notability. Notability is sort of asserted, but not from a reliable source (cite is to the company’s own website). I spent a while looking for references, and found only the company’s website, and reviews on software download sites. Since prod was contested, bringing it here. barneca (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete as there are zero reliable sources in the article, but it may be verifiable as it gets gazillions of Ghits 7 million for the products and tens of thousands for the corp itself. I challenge anyone to wade through that mess. Notable corp? Bearian (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable, independent sources magically appear that verify the notability of this corporation. Like every wikipedia article, this one must have independent sources, (and the onus is on the article's creator(s)), not just the company's website as sources. I will change my opinion if anything significant turns up. Keeper | 76 22:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as company fails WP:CORP. The lack of reliable secondary sources makes this article look like a Ghit farm for its products. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The article is well intentioned, not just a hit farm. And one would think that a company making software so ubiquitous would be notable. But if they were notable, some reliable source would have been interested enough to write about them. Maybe they're just a very productive but completely uninteresting company, i.e. not notable. Notability goes to whether something is worth reading. If there's simply nothing to say about the company that makes the software (the article subject is the company, not the software), then there's nothing to say. Wikidemo (talk) 17:47, 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 01:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simone Graffeo

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

Appears to be a hoax, Google turns up nothing for a Simone Graffeo, and all hits for "Moj Evropa" are unrelated. User's only other edits are self-reverted vandalism to Billy Ray Cyrus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I found a profile on Amazon.com. Unfortunately, the only result on Google for the given name was the WP article. No news or news archive results. As mentioned, no hits for "Moj Evropa", the "top charting album", that are remotely related. No reliable sources are given, and this contribution was not especially helpful. I would tend to think this is not a notable person. Ariel♥Gold 19:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. (jarbarf) (talk) 06:00, 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 delete. Kurykh 01:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Henry

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

Prod contested by the article's creaton and only editor. Non notable musician, no real assertion of notability, only sources are his publicity materials Dawn bard (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any evidence that this is someone who meets the WP:BAND criteria. His releases are "mixtapes", which is not something done by notable musicians. While it may be true that in a small niche in a college he may be known, there are no reliable, third-party sources that can verify the importance of the musician. Ariel♥Gold 19:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable, per above. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. the unreliable sources don't establish notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, shows no sign of a miracle recovery from its dismal state. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} 20:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden (talk • contribs)
• Delete millions of musical upstarts have a MySpace page but that does not equate to a Wikipedia page unless something special is going on Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete He doesn't seem to have made an impact beyond his own bedroom. Nick mallory (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:11, 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 no consensus. However, I'm going to redirect this to Mafia, because it's such a wretchedly bad article. No prejudice against recreation with decent sources and citations, however. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punjabi Mafia

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

Almost all of the article is completely unreferenced; one of the given external links mentions a punjabi mafia [10] only after calling them gangs for the entire article. All the references given are to incidents in Canada mostly attributed to gangs. One other reference does mention an Indo-Canadia mafia [11] when talking about a particular case. I believe even if stubbed, this article doesn't meet notability standard and no other references can be found to ever make this article anything more than a few sentence stub. Shell ^babelfish 17:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and make into a stub. Most of the information in the article would be difficult to verify, at the very least. However, as a stub, this should not be a problem. I believe that enough sources can be found to easily establish notability with a little searching. For example, try this and this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We will post more External Links from only Punjab. and Drug Lords from Punjab. its nonsense to delete Punjabi Mafia cause its not only reffering to Canada . PUNJABI MAFIA IS WORLD WIDE. including in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Canada, England , America, South America etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I understood that from the text; if you can provide those references, that would help a great deal. Shell ^babelfish 19:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending refs of actual "mafia" type org, not just random Punjabi bad people. We can always delete it later if no real references show up. Mykej (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or at least make it into a stub. Because of the very nature of the subject there can't been too many citations for it. Some fo the more fantastic elements could be removed, and it could be noted that such and such families are 'sometimes believed to be connected to the underworld', etc, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an article on the Punjabi mafia. Heck, according to lots of people, there is no Italian Mafia either. Nygdan 12-19-2007 —Preceding comment was added at 18:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As touched on in the nomination, there is little to no information supporting the idea that there exists a principally Punjabi mafia-style criminal organization. Isolated incidents of gang violence and other miscellaneous crimes committed by people sharing a common ethnicity do not a mafia make. tgies (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a member of the Punjabi community, I can assure you first hand that there is no such thing as the Punjabi Mafia and that it is sort of a humor and pride issue that keeps a few young men of the Punjabi community in Canada refering to themselves as the "Punjabi Mafia". The fire has further been fueled by Canadian media who having encountered such terms in Punjabi chat rooms, have added a sort of romantic and notorious element to the unsolved murder cases in the Indo-Canadian community. I have looked at all the references provided in the article and none support this notion of a "Punjabi Mafia" and are all isolated incidents, some of which may be gang related. This claim of an international underground network of Punjabi families involved in mafia type organized criminal activity and drug trafficking is also completely unsupported. It is true that Punjabi families in Canada and the States do tend to belong to an affluent and wealthy upper class (this can be supported by Census data), but this does not in any way indicate sophisticated criminal activity as implied by "Punjabi Mafia". This page appears to have been created for the amusement for a few individuals in the Punjabi community who are trying to propagate this notion of a Punjabi Mafia. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia should not be used for this type of propaganda. Only entries supported by solid citations belong here. Guneeta (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Punjabi mafia officialy originated in Punjab. we can post more external links but we are just posting the most recent activities. many old articles have been lost but i am posting from a Toronto view not Vancouver, infact Vancouver is the original base for Punjabi Mafia in Canada. so if anybody is from Vancouver post local Punjabi Mafia activites in your area to save article.

  The following is only from Toronto and recent activities. sorry i cannot get intouch with the old articles but will keep you informed with recent activities from now on.

  • http://www.thestar.com/News/article/179163 <<< Toronto News Article on proof of Punjabi Mafia connections from Canada Wide and also US America, article is most recent $20 Million of Cocaine seized on Feb 07, 2007.. <<Refers to Toronto Punjabi Mafia only... Not BC Vancouver. TorontoStar newspaper.
  • http://www.nriinternet.com/NRI_Drugs/CANADA/2007/7_Avtar_Sandhu_200Million_Cocain.htm <<< Same but article is based on Punjabi Community NewsPapers from Canada Toronto.
  • http://www.thestar.com/News/article/179468 <<<< Avtar Singh Sandhu case is still ongoing. He has been relased and had to surrender passport. Avtar statement said, he doesnt know English and demanded a Punjabi Speaking translator. , I will keep you informed about Avtar's case
  • http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20061211/punjab1.htm
  • Punjabi Mafia in Canada
  • PM's Death Squad
• Lets not forget the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 << Wiki External Link. Lets not forget the Bombing of Air India from Vancouver and many many Gun Shot Executions were taken place to prevent testamonial.

  Air India Case is also still going on upto Today. many victims in Toronto were also accused and executions were also taken place in Toronto. But still no arrests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk) 2007-12-20 01:48:59

+++++++ If you have more links to post, then you should certainly include them. The whole claim for deletion here is that the article isn't well referenced enough - Nygdan 12-20-2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nygdan (talk • contribs) 15:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Subject has notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete STRONG DELETE. I live in Punjab and this article is complete RUBBISH, POV & ORIGINAL RESEARCH. STRONG DELETE A INSULT TO WIKIPEDIA.--Sikh historian (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per tgies. (jarbarf) (talk) 06:01, 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 delete. Kurykh 01:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Club Tweezy

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

WP:HOAX. I went to Belmont. I live across the street from Belmont. I was searching for some additional notable alumni to add to the Belmont University article and came upon this. Wright-Maddox is a residence hall. The basement is dorm rooms. This is some kid's dorm room. How it's stuck around this long is kind of shocking. Smashville^BONK! 17:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable, only GHits are Wikipedia and mirrors. Most likely a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. I can't tell if it's a hoax, but it certainly lacks reliable soruces, and they do not seem forthcoming. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps the students formed a "club" in a dorm room in the basement. We may never know if it is true or not, but certainly, per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the article fails to provide reliable sources to back up the club's existence, much less its importance. Ariel♥Gold 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• If it's real, it's definitely not notable. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. completely non-notable. Probably hoax. Should've been speedied, or at the very least, prodded. Keeper | 76 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, probably a hoax as well. (jarbarf) (talk) 06:01, 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 merge to Freedman. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberti

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

Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article appears to be a restatement of a legal term. Recommend transwiki to wiktionary or establishing notability and content that is encyclopedic. Ra2007 (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary per nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the first section of Freedman; a useful distinction, in itself of encyclopedic interest. We should keep the resulting redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AtHomeNet

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

Contested PROD. Created by a single-purpose account, possible conflict of interest. There are a few possible sources out there, along the lines of this, but nothing very substantial. The company does not appear to meet the corporation notability guideline. Chick Bowen 06:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• From "Notability: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." The company has estbalished itself as the predominant provider in this niche market, and Susan Sanders has been featured in an article in USA today in the past. it is unfair to subject smaller companies without huge PR budgets to the same "Sources" requirement as larger companies...thus the very idea of "Notability" is subject to the interpretation of the individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.97.161 (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The gentleman above said "nothing very substantial"...what does "very substantial" mean? All of this is subject to interpretation. It is unfair to hold a smaller company to the same standards as an IBM or something, where the press will be willing (free of charge) to interview, research and report facts on a company. Susan Sanders has been consulted by management firms, and is considered an industry expert on the growing genre of community websites [12] This from the Washington Post .Com site about the USA Today Article. [13] This is the actual USA Today Article [14] Trying to apply a universal standard to everyone business of any size is rather unfair, why not wait for someone to attempt to disprove with facts the existence of this company and any of the facts about the market it operates in and the position it holds? There have been many reports on this business, but a great deal of them are not online, or not online anymore. Do you have a suggestion of what would be a noteworthy soruce to validate the facts on our page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and probably advertising. I've already had a long discussion with Edenrage about the difference between notability and verifiability, pointed out that the above sources s/he is citing are just passing mentions, and asked for sources that show notability to be added to the article. If someone who works for the company, as Edenrage has indicated s/he does, can't find sources to show notability, I'm not holding my breath that this is going to happen.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• In notability it states: "Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations"

Yes, we have had this discussion Fabrictramp, and I appreciate your help. The issue I have is not with verifiablitity. I put the references there becuase it couldn't hurt. I am trying to locate other sites that host the other articles and references made to the comapny and its founders. If we are discussing whether or not the company or what it does is notable, you need not look very far to see that the niche market of community websites is growing, with some states such as California as of Jan 1st passing laws now that mandate that homneowners associations post their agenda 4 days prior to a board meeting into a forum where it is accessible by all. It was once unheard of for community websites and the technology to pioneer software specifically for them would be a mainstay, but now it is. That is fact. For wikepedia to ignore this would certainly not be fair given the plethora of useless information about pop icons and obsucre cultural references denoted here. Again, we are all at the mercy at whether or not someone interprets this companies' role in that industry and the industry itself as "notable". An argument can be lodged either way. the fact is the large scale refereneces you want in TIME magazine and Wallstreet week don't exist yet...but should that mean the company is not deserving of a listing? Notability can be estbalished through other means than 3rd party articles even by it's own definition on wikipedia...and like most of the other definitions, there is room for interpretation and it clearly states that a subject can still be notable without the commonly accepted things. Advertising is just that. Fact is fact. Everything in this article is a verifiable fact, so while I agree there should be a debate on notability, the idea that it could be construed as advertisement was already suggested by you as not an issue per our previous chats on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as insufficiently notable. As yet no non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here is another article I am putting on the page...digging for more, and have some coming up in January in Condoowners Magazine, hopefully on their online edition as well. http://www.techsynergy.com/default.asp?pageID=101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. On the right side of barely notable. Needs cleanup as an encyclopedia entry. [Comment: I'm the admin who deleted it when it was an expired prod.] — Athaenara ✉ 00:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I suggest the creator of the article go add some POV to a random article - say Israel/Palestine, or the either the Bush or Clinton articles. That will protect from being a dreaded "single-purpose account". Mykej (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - does not meet "is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources' requirement. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:COI and WP:spam/advertising. A visit to User:Edenrage, creator of the article, tells us all we need to know. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I made it quite clear before I was new at this process. I had no idea the page "User Edenrage" had the same content as the profile in question. that was obviously a mistake, as what would the purpose have been of putting that under my own profile entry. It has been edited accordingly. I have edited other wikipedia pages in the past, including Eartha Kitt, Vicki Guerrero, and a couple of others, but keep in mind I am new to this process. I have already included at least one secondary source, and more are coming. Instead of just saying "delete", i appreciate the editors who are giving sound advice on how to make the page better and fit all of the guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as spam, conflict of interest, single purpose account, blah blah blah. Pharmboy (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete we are being asked here to be tougher on his sort of thing, to keep Wikipedia from turning into a sort of directory or compendium of corporate vanity listings. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: People have tried to find some sources, and it pains me slightly to see so much cleanup effort expended towards a doomed end, but this article is still well on the wrong side of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). They got a brief press mention in USA Today which was then picked up (also briefly) in the Washington Post. There's a sympathetic piece at Georgia Business Journal (which I don't know, but there are lots of business magazines that are in the habit of promotion more than trying to cover a subject), and a press release at [15]. It is really hard to write a good, NPOV article when the sources are as thin as this, which is why notability needs to mean more than just "the company got a few press mentions". Kingdon (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to some of the comments on the debate for "ATHOMENET"... if my account were a single purpose account, I would not have, nor would continue to make edits on other pages. (See Eartha Kitt, Vicki Guerrero,Fishbone, Terence Trent D'arby, Regina Carter, not to mention "Snapple" etc... and whatever else I do henceforth....)

The only requirement in COI that is met is that I have an affiliation, but cleary in COI it does not suggest that simply because of that affiliation that I cannot make an entry. With respect to neutral point of view, the article is clearly unbiased.

Much like the editor "Athenara" stated, is it not better to let an entry stand on the right hand side of "barely notable" as Athenara put it? If editors continuously make the decision to choose what they personally feel is notable, that takes the power out of the hands of the encyclopedia readers and contributors and defeats the spirit of wikipedia's purpose as an online resource does it not? and as for Spam or advertising, information is just that. There is no advertising here...the article states the purpose of the firm, what they do, and how it has impacted a growing niche market that will only continue to become larger and more well known. HOw many third party sources are needed to establish "notablility" Is it 2, 3, 10? Is there a concensus, or if there was only one in TIME LIFE magazine would that be enough? Again, if the spirit of wikipedia is to punish any fact, entity, or subject that does not appear what is obviously a very non-descript (depending on the editor's point of view)# of publications of various notability themselves, then 1/2 of the things listed in Wikipedia should not be here. I appreciate this forum to debate this topic, and I wish that users like me as well as editors could all weigh in becuase the people that are truly effected are often times oblivious to these debates that have the most effect on the people who look to wikipedia for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.97.161 (talk) 16:06, 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 Speedily deleted as recreation of deleted content (G4) by Fabrictramp (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). Non-admin closure. Powers ^T 17:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squacketball

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

This article was deleted before, see March 11 (I don't know how to link to the exact original AFD. It suffers from the same deficiency as before: non-notability. Archer3 (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Three times as notable as it was when this discussion occurred in March, (up to 9 google hits now), but still not notable. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Possibly speedy as G4 depending on the content of the previous version. --Onorem♠Dil 16:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Oddly enough, I'll probably try and introduce this at my club and see where it goes, but for now it's just another hybrid sport waiting for its big moment. 5 non-Wikipedia g-hits. - Richfife (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Quick (1809-1894)

Joseph Quick (1809-1894) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Search on ("Joseph Quick" 1809) indicates that this article may be a copyvio, also unsourced. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Keep. Sourcing is no problem - Google finds his obituary, and a search on the specific phrasing doesn't suggest copyvio to me. The Dutch Wikipedia also has a sourced entry. However, though his work was quite wide-ranging, his notability seems a bit borderline: he isn't in the ODNB and didn't merit a Times obit. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I've added a ref, and corrected the death date (his obit is clear that it was 1894 - the 1910 was probably his son). Hope this hasn't screwed up the AFD linking. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable (at least, its not clear here). Shiva_eVolved 16:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He should at least be notable for putting the water inlet above the place he died. That's quite a trick! Seriously, could use expanding, but seems notable to me. Mykej (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I've just tidied it up and sourced it a bit ... --Paularblaster (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks! --Paularblaster (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep after revamp. Shiva_eVolved 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Paularblaster's edits, notability is now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Nice rework there, Paularblaster. Keep. Might consider moving it to Joseph Quick (engineer), or something, after the AFD closes - the dates in the title are offputting. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well done everyone who improved this article, which I agree could be renamed. Is there another Joseph Quick? If not why keep the dates in the title? It was civil engineers like this who helped the industrial revolution happen, they built the backbone of Britain, and by extension the modern industrial world, through their schemes and absolutely deserve to be remembered in any encyclopedia pretending to seriousness or comprehensivness. Nick mallory (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That'd make sense, though I don't know what his canonical name might be. This Joseph Quick and his son had a firm called Joseph Quick & Son, so "elder" and "younger" is a possibility (the Dutch Wikipedia calls this one Joseph Quick senior and his son JQ junior). But the elder's father was also called Joseph Quick, and all three were civil engineers... Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That explains why it was created with the dates then! If they all had the same name and were all civil engineers the existing name makes sense after all. Nick mallory (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep after revamp looks good Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article seems to have had a major revamp, and all of my objections to deletion seemed to have been fixed, if no one objects I would like an admin to close this article debate as "Keep". VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 14:40, 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 01:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warcraft III Eternal World Rankings

Warcraft III Eternal World Rankings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not suitable for Wikipedia, this seems to be a record keeping of some Warcraft III tournament Fangz of Blood 15:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Fangz of Blood 15:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. Clearly unencyclopedic. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree, it looks like a ranking without notability. Xymmax (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- list with no context nor notability. Epthorn (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be an alternate compilation of information already contained on Warcraft III World Championships. -Verdatum (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lists of video game players/tournaments are not generally encyclopedia worthy, unless verifiable by reliable sources. Interestingly, Warcraft III World Championships seems to have tons of references, but they are all just URLs in ref tags, so I'm unsure how many of them would actually be considered reliable sources. While I admit I don't play that particular game, it does seem to have "professional world championships", so if enough reliable sources could be found for this list, I may reconsider my opinion. Ariel♥Gold 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  I also just checked the URLs. They all link basically to the same page or different forums. Fangz of Blood 15:42, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extrema (band)

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

Non notable. The two sites just take you to a homepage or a myspace page, none of which assert notability. Metal Head (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete I can find web references to this band doing national tours in Italy with Slayer and opening for Metallica, which could give them a presumption of notability under WP:MUSIC. However, I can find reliable sources to that effect, and I can't read Italian. I suspect that a U.S.-based band of this level could be shown notable, but as it stands I can't make the case that they are. Xymmax (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, I meant to write can't find reliable sources... Xymmax (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the showing of notability by Richfife below. Nice job. Xymmax (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia doesn't value foreign language sources less than local ones. Their record company is here. They were signed to V2 Records (which is a major label) at one point and are still on their webpage. Article about changing labels: [16]. Here's evidence of them appearing in a notable festival: [17]. - Richfife (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree about the validity of foreign sources. If V2 is considered a major label then I concur notability is shown. Xymmax (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment What notable bands have signed to V2? Never mind that question, I got the search to work.Metal Head (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

White Stripes and Moby for a start: White Stripes V2 page, Moby V2 page. - Richfife (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Richfife's research Doc Strange (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: On a notable label, and associated with super-notable bands, plus there are sources to be found online. J Milburn (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment If there are many sources online, then they should be mentioned on the page. Also, this article needs major work. Right now, it's hardly anything.Metal Head (talk) 14:20, 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, defaulting to keep. --Polaron | Talk 19:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Zone (TV series)

The Zone (TV series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

AfD tag added by anon with no reasoning; however, I can work it out - a two-sentence article on a filler TV phone-in show that ran for about 2 weeks on a now-defunct digital channel does not notability make. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 15:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No showing of notability, no indication that the show will return, and there doesn't seem to any way to expand this significantly. Xymmax (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep aren't television shows inherently notable? I've seen articles about failed American sitcoms that didn't clear 2 episodes. Shiva_eVolved 16:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

CommentI believe that they have to follow the same notability guidelines as everything else, it's just that historically it's been such a big production to put a program on the air that there's no problem with secondary sources. The problem I have here is the "nontrivial mention" part for this one. Xymmax (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its not correct via precise policy, but I have a gut feeling that any such TV development that existed, be it a place-filler, merits a stub. This is especially as ITV is a major company and the "ITV Play" channel experiment can be a significant part of ITV history. Shiva_eVolved 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment In 50 years of ITV history, the Play sub-brand is a footnote. Leaving that aside, the entire article is replicated in the list of ITV Play programmes in the ITV Play article. It existed for 2 weeks (although the end date is speculation - it ended with ITV Play at the very least, but there are no sources shown to say it didn't end before then because nobody at the time noticed). This was a "one person [redlinked, BTW] in front of a camera calling for viewers to phone in to guess answers" "programme" that lasted, at most, 16 days. It isn't even a programme - just a method of filling space on a dying channel deep down the EPG. On that basis I'm notable, having had more exposure to more people than this programme ever did. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have to disagree - maybe the Play sub-brand's failure is what perhaps makes it significant in ITV history. There's this other way to look at it, which is why I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Shiva_eVolved 03:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To be sure, I don't mind this article being deleted - whatever results from this discussion will be a good decision. I'm throwing this bit out here b'coz there is a different way to look at it. Shiva_eVolved 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The show was not very popular (as with some ITV Play shows). Thought the show would have grown, but it didn't, I think it's best to have a small piece about it on the ITV Play article. --AxG ^{@ ►talk} 22:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep given the demographics of ITV Play (channel) I should think that this show carries some sort of historic notability Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The program may have been a failure, but it was a notable one. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:09, 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 Delete.   jj137 ^♠ 23:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Grossman

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

No assertion of notability, no references to establish notability or verifiability. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Article fails to establish the notability of its subject, who simply appears to be just another person whose job involves appearing on television. That's hardly notable in the 21st century, surely. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Article doesn't assert the importance/sigificance, and therefore notability of the subject in question, through prose or by the use of cited sources. Rt. 18:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 18:58, 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 01:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scorp

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

The information here seems dubious at best. Even if it was verifiable, though, it is little more than a dictionary definition. The "translation" of Hamlet's soliloquy is a nice touch, but original research at best. Note also that the only incoming link is from Gobots due to one of the toys in that line having the same name. Powers ^T 15:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; this is unverifiable. One would think that someone, somewhere, would have found this word out from a "connoiseur of sherbet" and had *something* up on the web about it... but they don't. If someone finds sources, I'd be happy to reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• It's a hoax article. The text of the 1909 supplement to the Century Dictionary is conveniently available on the WWW, and one can see that there is no such word listed on page 1183. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, didn't realize that dictionary was available online. Good find. Since this is now an obvious hoax, would you think a speedy under G3 (pure vandalism, including obvious hoaxes) would be in order? Powers ^T 20:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per rationale above. Keeper | 76 22:48, 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. WP:BLP and yet after over 16 months does not have a single WP:V source for the information in the article. Policy trumps notability in this case. Pigman☿ 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Karins

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

No assertion of notability or verifiability, and no references to support either. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per Google search; minimally notable. [18], [19], [20] JJL (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per JJL. Shiva_eVolved 17:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with respect to JJL's research, still doesn't seem notable enough. --Lockley (talk) 21:42, 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, invoking WP:SNOW—Hate to do the snow-fall twice in one day, but it is justified. This was speedy deleted four times before being prodded, which landed it here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corinne Riley

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

The subject of this article doesn't meet WP:Bio. There are no references to her other than self-published ones. Merenta (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 'showcased on YouTube'? Sheesh! Fails WP:N and of course WP:RS. JJL (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete... she is in college and produced a 'video' with 3 classmates? I don't know what the BAMA Festival is, but I don't see any references reflecting notability... and a lot suggesting a lack thereof. Epthorn (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I believe that BAMA refers to the Bristol Academy of Media Arts and the "BAMA Festival" mentioned was a celebration of their students' work, and thus not an award that confers notability. MorganaFiolett (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to establish the notability of its subject. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. An AfD classic. Apart from "showcased on YouTube", we've also got "Corinne Riley, also known as CR" (wonder why?) and the first two entries on the 'Videography' are as camerawoman and runner. Marvellous. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails biographical guidelines, notability guidelines, it is not reliably sourced, no verification enabled. Rt. 19:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no notability proven at this point. Student films don't make one notable, even if someone does post it to YouTube. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough for a biography at this point.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:31, 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 01:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Church Without a Name

The Church Without a Name (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Combo of advertising and OR for a seemingly non-notable book by a non-notable author. Prod and Prod2 removed without comment. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - the book has not been covered in independent sources that I've been able to find, and appears to be non-notable from that indication. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but do not salt - this is a bad article about a poorly written book. The book dives into its subject without explaining adequately what that subject is. On the other hand, it is claimed the book has been reprinted twice, which might possibly point to notability, but that would depend on the size of the editions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 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 per Bondegezou, appear to pass WP:MUSIC. BLACKKITE 16:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elegy (Netherlands band)

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

State of Mind (Elegy album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) related article added by Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Non notable. Simple searches yield little to no results. Delete Metal Head (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't assert notability and doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Possibly a speedy A7 candidate. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• There may be more to these guys than appears obvious at the start. I've found a bio here that suggests they toured Europe, backing up Stratovarius and Kamelot at least once each, and were scheduled to tour with Yngwie Malmsteen as well. It looks like there might be some other sources in Dutch-language locations. Neutral at the moment, but I'm going to try and look a little deeper and see if I can find some confirmation of any of the claims in this bio. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable based on googling around. Mykej (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The band includes Patrick Rondat and formerly included Ed Warby, both notable in their own right. Under WP:MUSIC #6, that's reason enough to have an article here. Bondegezou (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment "Googling" around yields nothing notable about this band. You might stumble on a very small tid bit of information, but nothing to keep this article.Metal Head (talk) 14:37, 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. Kurykh 01:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A. Cornelius Thompson

A._Cornelius_Thompson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

There is no notability or verifiability. A GS for this person reveals no substantial hits; the only ones are the Wiki entry itself and a BBC Film Network profile that was clearly written by the subject himself ("ambitions...I'm currently working on shorts for the moment until I have established a solid base of decent short films. I have one possible feature film in the works and am aiming to make major feature films in the future. Delete.Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable and the more the article is expanded the clearer it becomes that this is also self-promotion. nancy ^(talk) 11:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Evident self-promotion by a school boy. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete yet. Evidence from the page containing the list of users who have edited the page comes mostly from Stowe school. As A. Cornelius Thompson has left Stowe school it is apparent that it may be malicous behavior that has posted false self promotion. I have since removed these statements and corrected the false information of which came from computers at Stowe school. I would wish this page to be watched closely before considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzythompson (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC) — Bizzythompson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete as falling well short of the requirements of WP:BIO. The sources we have are a self-posted bio on a BBC forum, a non working company website and an overarching company website for all of the companies that (at time of typing) records that it has had 198 hits. Nuttah (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable bio and self-promotion. --Lockley (talk) 21:32, 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. Note that this article was deleted by another admin; I'm just closing this procedurally. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amelia Morales y de Grecia

Amelia Morales y de Grecia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Daughter of a princess from a deposed monarchy. She doesn't have a title, and all this info can logically be put in her mom's article. Also nominating her siblings for the same reasons. Morhange (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrietta Morales y de Grecia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Carlos Morales y de Grecia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Amelia Morales y de Grecia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete as nominator. Morhange (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all to Princess Alexia of Greece and Denmark. Though children in a deposed royal family don't merit their own articles, I figure there's an outside chance someone will look these names up. But Wikipedia is not the society page, and there's no information in these articles aside from "these are her brothers and sisters". szyslak 10:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect all to mother. Individually non-notable individual. Charles 01:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Szyslak above. I'd be more inclined to keep if the Greek royal family were still in power, as she'd then have a (small) chance of inheriting the throne - but since they're not, she's definitely not notable. Terraxos (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect this and next three items. Even the article on Princess Alexia of Greece and Denmark seems not to show much notability. The notability of her husband Carlos Morales Quintana is also dubious. His article calls him an international yachtsman, but says nothing of his acheivements other than that he is J/80 fleet at Lanzarote. One article covering the while family would be quite enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to her mother. Effectively, delete, but as it will be recreated, it should instead be that redirect. Non-notable, all worthy information finds its home at her momma's article. (And the said momma deserves an own article, because for a few years, she WAS heiress presumptive of the then extant Greek monarchy, in other words, number 1 in line of succession.) Shilkanni (talk) 05:50, 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 deleted by User:Tone. Kurykh 05:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ana María Morales y de Grecia

Ana María Morales y de Grecia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Daughter of a princess from a deposed monarchy. She doesn't have a title, and all this info can logically be put in her mom's article. Also nominating her siblings, Carlos, Arrietta, and Amelia. Morhange (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Morhange (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 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 deleted by User:Tone. Kurykh 05:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arrietta Morales y de Grecia

Arrietta Morales y de Grecia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Daughter of a princess from a deposed monarchy. She doesn't have a title, and all this info can logically be put in her mom's article. Also nominating her siblings, Carlos, Ana María, and Amelia. Morhange (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Morhange (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 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 Deleting, all are mentioned at the mother's article and this is enough for now. --Tone 20:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Morales y de Grecia

Carlos Morales y de Grecia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Son of a princess from a deposed monarchy. He doesn't have a title, and all this info can logically be put in his mom's article. Also nominating his sisters, Arrietta, Ana María, and Amelia. Morhange (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Morhange (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enrique Fainchtein

Leaving aside BLP concerns and the fact that the article reads like a hatchet job, this does not seem to be notable individual. Fredrick day (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to fail WP:BIO. The lawsuits are somewhat interesting, but nowhere near notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • Do Not Delete, Seems like this even with be notable in Los Angeles when it is also said and done. It must be noted that in the Los Angeles metropolitan region, ((Fleishman-Hillard))'s significant billing of the City of Los Angeles is along the same lines. If there's some neutrality, then why not attempt to balance it out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.18.11 (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC) — 71.106.18.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Speedy Delete/Strong Delete Essentially defamatory article written by someone who clearly is not enamored with this particular landlord. Some cleanup might neutralize it, but that means someone with a positive spin on this guy would have to chime in. Unlikely. Comparison with Fleishman-Hillard is way off base, since a) F-H had more global import b) F-H had wider reach, and most importantly, c) F-H is a company; this guy is a person and [W:BLP] comes into play. Finally, this seems of little import to any but local activists. Or the subject, I guess, but not in a positive way. Ψν^Psi_nu 21:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:COATRACK. No attribution of notability to independent sources, so fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Ah, yes. I didn't know there was a term for this. Now I do. And to quote from the WP:COATRACK section, "When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, this is a very serious problem that requires drastic measures. It may all be true and it may all be sourced, but if a biography of a living person is a negatively-balanced coatrack, this is unacceptable." Ψν^Psi_nu 16:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • Do Not Delete, Apparently this is based on the creation of knowledge of CA. Redevelopment law and/or the affordable housing process. Seems like this person is shaking up how tax-incremented financing is done in the Los Angeles area, or so it seems. The Court system in CA. seems like a pretty good source Dhardung. Alan Casden of Los Angeles, a developer who was tied to former-Hahn's corruption allegations is a better example than F & H. Even more to the point,Caruso_Affiliated, a development firm run by polarizing developer Rick Caruso who has also been in the middle of litigation in Glendale, CA. has a similar history...and is on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.75.194 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC) — 76.79.75.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Delete It seems to me like all of the support for keeping this particular page is from one source - note how both of the entries above that do not suggest Delete use the same, nonstandard format. I would guess it is the creator of the page, who appears to hold a pretty strong grudge. Please close this out to put this one-person campaign to rest before it becomes a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.39.228 (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Multiple WP:BLP problems here. JavaTenor (talk) 09:25, 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. Kurykh 01:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heathen Girls

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. One album in 1982 and then they broke up. The only sited source is a website site for another band.

• also Rose Whipperr's page (lead singer)

Thanks Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both for lack of evidence of notability; was the album on a major label? Doesn't sound like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJL (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Sex Pistols also put out one album and then broke up. While these guys aren't in that league, I have found mailing lists where music fans were looking for info on this band. If there had been a WP article when they were looking, everybody would have been happier. Mykej (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

However they still do not meet the guidelines for a band.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why they aren't called "rules" for a band. Judgment overrules (or should) slavish devotion to the top 40. Mykej (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Usefulness isn't a keep criteria and wikipedia is not a directory of bands. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:MUSIC; while there may be some exceptions to the rule when it comes to these guidelines - the Sex Pistols are a good one, as they rather impressively impacted the world of music with their album - this band has no apparent lasting notability from its one EP. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Both - fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND by a landslide. Long-orphaned stubs about a long-defunct, non-notable band and a singer of which about fifteen people have heard. 47 Google hits for the band (led by this article, Whipperr's website and a Myspace page, a sure sign of notability death), 84 hits for Whipperr, including Wiki mirrors and blog posts. Judgment should indeed overrule slavish devotion to the rules, when needful. In this case, they should agree in every particular.  RGTraynor  21:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Quick note, I've nominated a related article for deletion as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Whipperr. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't have anything on iTunes, and iTunes is supposed to be the world's biggest music library. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 17:41, 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 Delete, it's snowing for Christmas. BLACKKITE 16:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funketeers

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

Non-notable, highly suspectingly OR. _→AzaToth 14:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete As vandalism (G3) --Closedmouth (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete looks to be WP:OR, WP:NEO. I don't believe this is vandalism. -Verdatum (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see this as WP:NEO but not vandalism. Merenta (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Neologism, not vandalism; Original Research. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, maybe not as vandalism, but certainly as WP:NONSENSE. Ψν^Psi_nu 21:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but please spare me the acronyms Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: Per all above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:04, 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. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of asteroids/1–100

List of asteroids/1–100 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is certain to be controversial, because I am suggesting the deletion of not just this page but something like 1800 others with similar titles! It seems that whenever I am surfing through Random articles, several of these pages will be presented in a short period of time. None of them is anything more than a partial directory and the whole thing can be seen off-Wikipedia at Harvard's site, beginning with [21], and doubtless in other locations. As it is, these List of asteroid... articles are of little more interest than articles would be that repeated telephone directories. As "Wikipedia is not a directory", I suggest deleting all of these articles and making a prominent external link on the main Asteroids page. Can anyone suggest a reason to keep these pages? Emeraude (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The admonition that "Wikipedia is not a directory" (found at WP:NOT) is worth reading. I suppose any list could be looked at as a "directory", although the intent is to avoid endless compilations of "everything that exists or has ever existed". The reason that you see the asteroids arranged as #1 to #100 on the list is because these were the first 100 that were discovered and identified by astronomers during the years 1801-1868. The IAU still considers this to be the primary form for arranging the asteroids. Unlike restaurants, TV episodes, movie characters, etc., asteroids were around centuries ago and will be here centuries from now. Let's not touch the encyclopedic stuff. Mandsford (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that the number of these rocks is literally astronomical and, if each had its own page, would be ~10% of the Wikipedia - that's why they are showing up so often in random searches. If you extended the same principle to stars and galaxies, we'd be swamped as there are even more of those. The real test per WP:5 is whether there's a readership for this massive fragmented list. Casual readers will just be interested in the notable cases while I suppose professionals would prefer the consolidated list, from which these articles are generated. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - This is clearly not a List or repository of loosely associated topics, nor a Genealogical or Phonebook entry, or a directory, or a Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. I agree with Mandsford here. ViperSnake151 13:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems worth keeping to me, each asteroid has its own page which is well referenced. I feel these lists are a useful way of presenting the data - 86.152.227.176 (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Each asteroid on the first page has its own page, but this is not the case with the vast majority of the tens of thousands of asteroids listed in 1800 subsequent pages.Emeraude (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Sounds like we need more pages, not fewer. Mykej (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Satisfies directory warning as these are closely related articles (or possible articles) in an apparently standard/notable listing scheme. The only other option for organization would be categories, but that would destroy the numerical standard and be objectively more difficult to use. No point in degrading Wikipedia. Joshdboz (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously, per Mandsford. Asteroids, like obscure place names or obscure ancient philosophers, are inherently "notable". Or better than that, "encyclopedic": even if for some of them, the only possible article is a stub containing the date and identity of the first observer and some mathematical details about its orbit. As pointed out, this is the standard way of cataloguing them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the first page is a clear keeper; whether the 1800th is also is less clear to me. Would need a different proposal to draw a line (and not even sure then). JJL (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Mykej (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep—The first asteroid discoveries are particularly notable for being made before the introduction of photography. The case for the much higher-numbered pages grows increasingly weaker with the introduction of automated technology, but I'm not sure where the line should be drawn.—RJH (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If we delete things on Wikipedia which can be sourced elsewhere there wouldn't be much left. If Wikipedia is merely going to be teenagers repository of japanese cartoon trivia and baseball statistics then we don't need these articles on, you know, parts of our solar system but if it's going to be a serious encyclopedia then this is exactly what it should cover. Nick mallory (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is pretty obvious no need to waste time on this any further Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep : a list of known asteroids is certainly notable per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete most The list of the first 100 seems well worth keeping but another ~150,000 of them is silly. WP:NOT#DIR applies and so we should only list the notable ones. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment From asteroid: Hundreds of thousands of asteroids have been discovered within the solar system and the present rate of discovery is about 5000 per month.. I suggest we compare with List of mountains, List of galaxies and List of stars which seem to have sensible cut-offs and make more effort to focus on the notable cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep—although long, the list of numbered minor planets is an encyclopedic list with a well-defined inclusion criterion. Spacepotato (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment : With the advent of the Panstars project toward the end of next year, the rate of discovery will rapidly increase. A policy to decide which need to be added might be a good idea before then, but any named (as opposed to just numbered) asteroid is certainly notable. Chrislintott (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep' Useful--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 20:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• The support for this article is astronomical Mandsford (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As the nominator, may I add a comment? My original proposal concerned not this 'article' but some 1,800 'articles' (plural). It was clearly a tactical error to start with the first in the list, since quite obviously the earliest found and named asteroids are notable. Perhaps I should have started with List of asteroids/168301–168400 and worked back! Whatever, there is an incredible number of repetitive pages of information that is adequately covered in online directories, most of it not notable in any real sense. Compare this with a ongoing campaign in Wikipedia to delete articles on London bus routes (a few hundred, not 1,800 articles) on the grounds that Wiki is not a directory or depository for database information. Something needs to be done. Emeraude (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment concur that a policy or at least consensus is needed. The comparison suggested by Colonel Warden may be useful as a starting point. But indeed, the first page here is a keeper. I don't know how to resolve the Heap paradox in this case without the help of a clear proposal. JJL (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this ideal list, no solid argument has been made for deletion. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, since clearly not in violation of WP:NOT (per Mandsford) or even WP:Five pillars. Please, remember WP is not paper, and we should include all topics fit for an encyclopedia. Awolf002 (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this is appropriate apparatus to lead to articles on individual asteroids. However above perhaps 100 most of the articles (though they do exist) are mere one-line or two-line stubs repeating the information in the list. Is there any hope that many of these will be expanded into worthwhile articles? Several of the articles have a surprsing number of edits for something so brief, but much of this seesm to be adding links to equivalent articles in other WPs. How much is really known of the asteroids individually? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 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 delete. Kurykh 01:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RYM (Rangers Youth Mob)

Non notable youth gang without any substantial evidence/references to say otherwise Jimbo^[online] 12:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - does not meet WP:N. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Impossible to clean this article up to make anything usable out of it. Also unverifiable, non notable. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as unverifiable and possibly something that could escalate into more gang (real or imagined) braggery. Anyone up for that? Ψν^Psi_nu 21:22, 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 delete. Wizardman 18:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riesstiu IV

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

Non-notable fictional character. Nothing substantial has been added to the article since it was created 3 years ago. Ridernyc (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - absolutely no real-world notability for this character. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot find (on an admittedly cursory search) any indication that this character is notable enough to have been discussed by independent sources such as reviewers. Merge per the guidelines of WP:FICT into Taiidan. (Which has sourcing and notablity issues of its own, but let's clean things up from the outer edges in.) —Quasirandom (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & no real-world assertion of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:FICT. Given that this character appears to be immensely minor, there's not really any material to merge. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:44, 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 redirect to School District 8 Kootenay Lake. Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 13:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brent Kennedy Elementary School

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

Non-notable primary school with no assertion of notability. Emeraude (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a school; therefore it will have had a profound impact on all past and present pupils. Markb (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- no assertion of notability. It is already listed in the school district page so no merge is needed. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and yell NOOOOOOOOOO to the "impact on students" logic... that's what homepages are for... let's make an article for Dunkin Donuts next...Epthorn (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • coment Here it is: Dunkin_Donuts. I await your proposal for deletion Markb (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I suspect Epthorn meant an article for the Vancouver CMA (Surrey) Dunkin Donuts: [22]. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to School District 8 Kootenay Lake. Redirects are cheap and deletion makes no sense. TerriersFan (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Re-direct to School District 8 Kootenay Lake - A simple solution, beneficial for navigation and preserves page history if anything happens to make the school notable enough for its own article in the future. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I also see nothing wrong with 10,000+ re-directs if necessary, simply per WP:NOT#PAPER. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: no assertion of notability, no reason to think it's notable. A redirect would be fine as well. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: it is a school. So what? And groceries are... well, groceries. My local grocery has a profound impact on all its customers, I may assure you. Goochelaar (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • coment I doubt your local shop taught you to read and write and hence contribute here. Markb (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • First: Actually my mother taught me, and she was a great woman, but nonetheless she does not deserve a WP article, or not for that reason, at least. Second: My local grocer sells me food on a daily basis, which turns out to be essential for my continuing to contribute wto WP. Third and most important: You understood perfectly well what I meant. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Your local grocery may well have a profound impact on all its customers. mine does. But your assurance alone won't cut it. If you can find sources that would meet WP:N (and I guess WP:ORG for a business), WP:V, and WP:RS, then your local grocery would also be worth a Wikipedia article, just like mine is. We also have articles on a lot of mothers who meet WP:BIO. There's a lot of room on the Internet for a lot of Wikipedia articles. But there will never be enough time to work out all the niggling ideas about notability if we don't have simple, broad rules for it, or broad rules for simple categories of items like schools. Your personal ideas about what's notable are just that -- personal. What we need are principles that everyone can understand that would lead, let's hope, to eventual consensus.Noroton (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect with School District 8 Kootenay Lake since it is barely an article better suited off there Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, elementary schools have to show notability like everything else. There is about one elementary school for every 3200 people in the US, so assuming Canada has about the same proportion, there are 10,000 elementary schools in Canada. I would rather not see 10,000 redirects, Wikipedia's internal search engine will find it. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable entry and redirect to School District 8 Kootenay Lake. Mh29255 (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Coccyx Bloccyx et al. The article mentions no notable alumni, no sports, no major academic programs, no arts/music progam, etc., therefore, it is not notable in my book. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect School District 8 Kootenay Lake to as per Terriersfan, Coccyx Bloccyx. I would rather see redirects so that if someone is willing to actually create an article that meets Wikipedia standards, they will have as few difficulties to creating it as possible. Pace, AnteaterZot, I'd rather see 10,000 Canadian elementary school redirects that might eventually lead to 10,000 Canadian elementary school articles, each one meeting WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. We would be a better encyclopedia for it. Noroton (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I doubt that 1 in 100 Canadian elementary schools are notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect with the hopes of saving ourselves from these exact same arguments every time a school is nominated for deletion. Keeper | 76 23:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to School District 8 Kootenay Lake. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Rediect. Nothing to merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to school district page as suggested. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:10, 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 No consensus. BLACKKITE 16:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source Radio

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

This was originally a PROD, contested at DRV, and restored automatically. Concerns remain regarding a lack of reliable sources, and the notability of the university radio station. Delete. Xoloz (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone cites significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject during the course of this AfD. --Stormie (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Due to famous alumni. Since the famous alumni don't even appear that famous, I'm talking very weak keep. It is probably possible to find reliable sources for much of the content, but the article does very little to establish notability. -Verdatum (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Earlier versions of the page linked to alumni at current gigs, better establishing notoriety. Mykej (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as the article is now, it doesn't establish notability, in my opinion. It fails to cite reliable, third-party sources. _TheIslander 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete; lack of RSs means a failure of WP:N. More importantly, all the key information in the article is unsourced resulting in a failure to meet WP:V, which is policy. BlueValour (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Look at the category "College Radio Stations in the United States". I would argue that all of those stations are notable, and that Source radio is no less notable for not being in the U.S. Verifiability is a doddle, for anyone actually attempting to verify. Granted, the appropriate links should be included in the article. Mykej (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - university sports and activities tend to be far more notable in the States because they attract significant media attention which, with a few obvious exceptions, they don't get in the UK. Be that as it may, for this page to survive it needs reliable sources showing why it is notable. BlueValour (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The station gets some WP:RS notice beyond the university. One notable/semi-notable alum claim is now sourced, checking the others. Most of the coverage is under the station's old call signs and old FM signal. Notable as a licensed radio station with just enough reach into the community and some history. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 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 delete. Kurykh 01:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forthcoming unnamed Smoosh album

Forthcoming unnamed Smoosh album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article for a highly crystalline album (three "confirmed" songs, no title, speculative label, sources that amount to "they are working on another album".) Declined prod. tomasz. 09:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough information in it's current state to be included in an encylopedia. Article is speculative at best. Mattie^TK 10:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Absurd to claim notability at this stage. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as speculation. Suggest recreating the article if and when the album is released. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The word forthcoming in the title should have made this a speedy candidate, although I realize there is no appropriate category to do as much. Keeper | 76 23:02, 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. Kurykh 05:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XArchive

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

Non notable software product Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

why is Xarchiver notable and this isn't? XArchive is notable in that you can extend it by writing shell scripts and it shows multiple archives in tabs. it's very unixy.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains why this is not a usefull argument in a deletion discussion. Good point though. I took that to AfD aswell. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:31, 27 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xarchiver

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

Non notable sofware product Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:55, 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, Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Let me admit from the start that I know nothing of Linux software, so I come into this discussion cold. When a Google search yielded 50,000+ hits, though, I thought that there must be something to this article. I've now spent about 20 minutes looking for articles that could be used as good notability support for Xarchiver. I didn't find any, although I found many, many comments from Linux users indicating the software is in relatively wide circulation, and is regarded as useful. I'm willing to try to filter out a few of the more substantial of these to add to the article, but I would much rather have someone do it who actually knows something about Linux. Please let me know if no more knowledgeable volunteers show up, and I'll get to work. (And, for those who don't already know it, note that "Xarchiver" is not the same as "Xarchive".) Tim Ross·^talk 18:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Another weak keep - Following Tim's reasoning, I tried a Google search and found myself fence sitting as well... I don't know much about Linux, but it seems like this article fits in here, despite the difficulty in finding good sources (although I spent all of two minutes looking, to be honest). I added in a brief mention from a magazine, but I'll be the first to admit that it's a pretty minor reference. While I usually interpret WP:V strictly, I feel that there's no harm in keeping an article here for what appears to be an important part of a fairly popular OS. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if between us all we can find is a trivial mention, then I guess this probably isn't notable. Addhoc (talk) 21:00, 27 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. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Runton War Memorial

West Runton War Memorial (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Totally non-notable. No different from thousands of similar memorials in every town and village in the UK. Already adequately covered in the West Runton article. The author's proposal to list the men amazes me. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete While it is not always right to delete a new article rather than waiting to see how it develops, the author's comments on the discussion page seem to suggest that this will not develop into anything more than a list of war dead, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Also, suggestions of COI and OR. As per nom, this war memorial is not in itself notable and is, in any case, covered in West Runton. In fact, the vast bulk of this article is copied from there. Emeraude (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Userfy and see how it develops. I can't see the COI/OR: all he says on the talkpage is that he would have found such an article useful when he was researching his own (Devonian) family's Great War connections (so somebody researching a West Runton family would find likewise) - not that this article is his own research about his own family. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's covered at West Runton, and the proposed expansion with a name list would be well into WP:MEMORIAL, WP:DIRECTORY and WP:IINFO. There are plenty of other sites for genealogycruft. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Everything notable about this war memorial has already been said in the West Runton article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read all your comments on the project page and can tell you that I intended to do more about the memorial than just list the names. This particular memorial is on a busy main road and has no pavement in front of it, which makes it somewhat unusual in the first place as well as not being very accessible to anyone interested in it. I hoped to add an image, details of the architect and a general description of the memorial. It also can not be attributed to just West Runton Article as it covers the Dead of East Runton also.Stavros1 (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

on a busy main road and has no pavement in front of it, which makes it somewhat unusual

Uhh, being at the top of a 1000ft tower or made entirely of radiocobalt or decorated with carvings of winged monkeys in Nazi unform would be somewhat unusual. Being on a main road and not having a pavement is a fairly banal level of unusualness. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I dont see a problem with the article wikipedia contains many types of War memorial see also List of memorials. Palmiped (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am totally fed up with this pointless discussion. The negative comments by some of you (Especially the poor sarcasm by Gordonofcartoon) have led me to the conclusion that any dialoge with you people seems to be a waste of my and your time. I will now leave you to get on with your determined attempt to remove a postive contribution. Goodbye and thanks very much RHaworth for stirring this up in the first place Stavros1 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• What a depressing response. Stavros1, have you looked at britishwargraves.org.uk? It is asking for volunteers. It has entries for R W Abbs, Maurice Andrew Noel Becher and seven other men buried in West Runton churchyard. You could straightaway help by clarifying the date and place of death of the two I have linked to. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to village article. Nuttah (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this article merely repeats text that is already in West Runton, so there is nothing to merge. I have heard of work researching who all the people named on war memorials were, but I would suggest that would generally be NN research. The point about East Runton can be covered if necessary by a cross-refernece from that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 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 Redirected to Tripod (band) to catch people searching for "Tosswinkle". A duplicate article Tripod tells the tale of the Adventures of Tosswinkle the Pirate (Not Very Well) (DVD) was deleted. BLACKKITE 15:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tripod tells the tale of the Adventures of Tosswinkle the Pirate (Not Very Well)

Tripod tells the tale of the Adventures of Tosswinkle the Pirate (Not Very Well) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability. Looks like it might be an advertisement. Dougie WII (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete... amusing title but no notability established at all. Also I agree with nom that it's probably an ad... there's 3 links, two of them lead to sites 'about' the group (i.e. it's website) and the third is a link which helpfully states "Buy DVD/VHS". Epthorn (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The Buy link leads to their website too. Ive removed it, since it is redundant. Metao (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and likely spam as above. --Lockley (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Cleanup or Merge Definitely not an ad or spam. Tripod are probably Australias biggest comedy act. They are the #1 google search result for 'tripod' for a reason! Why is this nominated, but none of the other titles in their discography? The article could definitely use a little love, though. Metao (talk) 03:55, 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 keep. Kurykh 05:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Business press

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

Article fails WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Hu12 (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The Business press is a very notable topic and certainly deserves an article to describe its history, current form, and major players. If the current article is only an indiscriminate list, then it simply needs to be edited. Joshdboz (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: This article looks like a listing of business press instead of an actual article. Also, it fails WP:NOT. I'm not so sure it qualifies as spam necessarily, but I believe if the original contributor of this article genuinely wants an archive of business press, I'd suggest this article's contents be moved to List of Major Business Press in the United States instead. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep It looks ok now. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note re; the spam nomination. This was one of many promotional articles created by an Incisive Media Investments Ltd, WP:SPA spam sock account. see. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Publisher_Spam.2C_Incisive_Media_Investments_Ltd._.282.29. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and edit critically. The spammer does not seem to chave created the article, but just added his company's section. Whoever developed the article, the overall topic is notable. Having embedded lists do not violate policy. Whether all the red-linked titles should be included is another matter. Since the IncisiveMedia section was indeed created by a spammer, and is way out or proportion to the notability it can be trimmed drastically. and then we'd have an adequate article. They should probably be done by some objective criterion like rank in category, which may take a while to check. But there is an available authoritative source, Ulrich's,so it is possible. The quickest way to improve the article is to comment out the redlinks, and I have just done that. I know some people think that everything contributed by a spammer should be kept out of WP, but that is an incorrect interpretation of WP:COI--they just need a review. DGG (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep according to Joshdboz. Article needs improvement and editing.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:59, 26 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 01:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esprit de plum

Esprit de plum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure this is a real concept. Could be a neologism. 650l2520 (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Could be a neologism; on the other hand could be total bollocks. The author ought to know that the French word is plume, not plum, but in any case, no refernces found to this phrase supposedly invented by two people who are redlinks. Delete. Emeraude (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Google Search reveals a whopping 6 hits not including WP and repeats. Without a Reliable source, this is a non-notable neologism. -Verdatum (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as made up and not even spelled correctly. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 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, defaulting to keep. --Polaron | Talk 18:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SuperHeroHype.com

SuperHeroHype.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, lack of secondary sources, and the page seems to be a target for disgruntled members of the forum to air out personal vendettas. Also, when it was proposed for deletion, the page creator said he/she would add information proving notability, but that was months ago and it was never done. *one more night*^{talk/contribs} 06:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no reliable, independant sources, so I don't see how this subject is notable... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning towards keep My initial reaction was "delete", but the site isn't exactly small - there's site member reviews going back 4+ years. Lots of articles about this and that, albeit lots of Google ads. I can see deleting for lack of secondary sources, but I think the site has notability simply because there's a lot of information on it and a lot of folks seem to use it. While third-party sources seem to be limited to the gaming/fantasy movie world, there are quite a few other sites that reference superherohype.com.Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• keep - this is fairly prominent website, with exclusive news and interviews for Comic Book and Fantasy related movies. The page is often source by sites as newsarama, darkhorizons and comicbookresources. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC).
• Delete as insufficiently notable. Website has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep highly notable site, one of the most famous alongside Ain't It Cool News and IGN. Alientraveller (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep informative about website and its members from an objective angle, regarding the Boards and the former member Cristo

MrWotUp (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning towards keep per Tanthalas39. I think deletion policy says it best. If in doubt, don't delete. There's enough doubt here that makes me believe we shouldn't delete. Hiding T 16:42, 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 delete. Kurykh 01:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scouse house

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

Doesn't seem like a notable genre. Has no sources and is possibly original research or fabricated. Cannot find any reliable second party sources that mention it. --Neon white (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There is plenty of evidence thst scouse House is an established genre. Many record labels (including All Around the Word, Xposed Records, D&G, Bouncin Tunes & many more) have released records in this genre. Many music stores (Online & Highstreet stores) also sell scouse records (Juno, HTFR anyone!?). Scouse house is quite young, but that is no excuse to ingonre it's exsistence. Nigel A. Cryer, Burnley. 17:00, 19 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.110.163 (talk)

Unestablished non-notable genres that have no reliable coverage don't belong on wikipedia. There are no major online music stores that recognise this as a category. Buzz words that exist in a small locality and are used/invented by small independant labels aren't notable genres. Anybody can invent a term to refer to what they regard as a seperate genre. If there is reliable evidence then add it to the article. Claims of evidence isn't enough. --Neon white (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced neologism. No evidence that this is an established genre. If reliable sources could be cited, that would be one thing, but this article shows no evidence of such. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think it's time to start taking a hardline on music genres. No sources, nothing that really distinguishes this from other forms of house music, many notability and original research issues here. Ridernyc (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If this were a form of the rock'n'roll it would still be a mistake. Lacks credibility and is not Big Band-y enough, dig? Natasha Amazing (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a well-established music genre in the North-west of England with many well-known producers and artists (see Ultrabeat for example and most releases on AATW include some form of scouse mix). The majority of nightclubs in Liverpool also play it as their main form of music. I'll put up some samples if that would help? I'm also looking for sources but they're hard to come by... :) Richsage (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether it is established is irrelevant. What matters here at Wikipedia is whether it is documented. This is an encyclopaedia and we aren't in the business of documenting the undocumented. We aren't in the business of inferring a new genre of music that is heretofore undocumented, from examples or otherwise. So to make your argument hold water, please cite some of those sources. I and other editors have looked and we haven't found any sources at all. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your reply - a few published sources that mention it in passing can be found at [23] (page 120), at [24] (page 118), International DJ magazine April 2004 (online version [25]) and a Reuters Paul McCartney interview at [26]. I'm not sure whether these would class as appropriate enough secondary sources due to the lack of information within them (save for the mention of the genre), but there seems to be a dearth in books or published material that goes into more depth, given that the genre is relatively new (in comparison with other, more widely-available genres) and has a tendency to be localised to the north-west. I'd be grateful for your opinions on the above? Thanks, Richsage (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, see I looked over the sources, and it looks like you hit the nail on the head with the problem. So, lets say I want to know something about this musical style. Lets say I want to look for a description of the style. All I have from these sources is that it is a form of house music, and it is "bouncy". Not much to build an article on. If there does not exist a discussion of the source in any real detail outside of Wikipedia, then anything put INTO Wikipedia becomes original research and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia compiles already published information; as Uncle G says, it should never be the first place such information is published. If this article stands, it appears that it WOULD be the first place it is published. For what it is worth, I did a search at [www.allmusic.com (go to advanced search, and search under "style") and they have bubkiss on this "Scouse house". Allmusic is pretty much comprehensive, and if they don't recognize it as a style, its probably still fairly fringe at this point. Keep looking; if you can find a source that says "Scouse house is charcterized by yada yada yada..." that actually explains what it is and has some depth to it, you may have something, but I don't see any of that now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I dont believe you can create genres based on localities, there's little evidence of it's existance and even less to prove it differs in any way from basic House music. Every band from every local scene likes to think they have a seperate style but generally the only difference is the locality in which it is being played in. The only real artist of note mentioned in the article is Ultrabeat, who's sound can be more accurately described as Eurodance as the sound is rooted are largely in the German dance music scene. --Neon white (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's had long enough. Nothing concrete's been to done to demonstrate its veracity. 86.134.198.192 (talk) 21:47, 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 by User:Od Mishehu, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 07:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lynn valley elementary

Lynn valley elementary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, nonnotable school. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 as a group/association/whatever with no assertation of notability, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nonnotability, unreferenced Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:32, 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. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conscription in the European Union

Conscription in the European Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is redundant, because the information is covered under military service, and it's nonsensical, because conscription is a purely national competence. Sure, we could have articles on conscription in all sorts of supranational blocs (NATO, ASEAN, OAS, AU, etc.), but really, why should we? Biruitorul (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A case could be made for this on the basis of steps toward an EU military with the RRF but it's really a step removed from that and there's no clear relevance. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Already covered by other articles. The article conscription already has a list titled "Countries with and without mandatory military service" within it. We don't need two lists coverint the same topic. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Military Service. The information is contained there, and someone may look up the subject. And while we're at it, Conscription and Military Service should be sorted out better. --Arcanios (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to military service per argument that this national policy has nothing to do with supranational organization. Article is only needed if a common EU defense ever has a common policy. Joshdboz (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because the transformations in the European Union member states' policies, is an important subject for further examination. The EU is not "just another supranational bloc" (read the relevant treaties). Many member states abolished conscription on the basis that it is not needed, since the Union promotes tighter integration between them and a more secure environment. In fact, I believe that every key sector of a "typical" national state, should be projected upon the relevant transformations of the EU. I would also like to add that eurosceptic users may have their own personal political views about what "makes sense" and what not, but this is Wikipedia and many people find these information useful if they are listed as separate and not bloated articles, with long lists and/or tables. -- Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.208.75 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect. Redundant, the text provides too little of information for the purpose suggested by 85.75.208.75 above. Individual articles on military service per country would be useful, though. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's just a list of wikilinks, no text. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:31, 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 per WP:SNOW as a Hoax. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hecknicity

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

Speediest delete possible. Not only is it a definition, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but it's nonexistent according to Google. Also, the sources given are only sources for roots, not for the actual word. A non-author user Hwthwr (likely a sock-puppet) opined that "Although it is obsolete, this page will come in handy for someone who stumbles across this word and can not find a definiton. It is not a protologism, it has been seen before." If Google results are any indication, no one will need worry about stumbling across this word, and it HASN'T been seen before. Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Evan makes a valid point —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwthwr (talk • contribs) 06:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism, totally devoid of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE - if the word is "not present anywhere on the internet, nor is it heard commonly in any English-speaking areas throughout the globe", then WP isn't the place to start your little meme. Dig? Natasha Amazing (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball Delete Clear case of WP:DICT, no WP:RS. Just because you can build a word with greek/latin roots doesn't make it a word. Even if you can, it doesn't make it worthy of an article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. A hoax if ever I saw one. single purpose account (s). the creator, in fact all major contributors are probably the same person. Keeper | 76 23:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete yup this is a hoax too, I wonder how many of these are on Wikipedia right now Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obvious hoax. Mh29255 (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - It has been here too long already. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this were a real word which could be verified and sourced, the article would still just be a dictionary entry, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 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. Sandstein (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX

Descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A violation of WP:IINFO, in that the "article" is merely an overwhelming series of royals, whose only tenuous link is one of two common ancestors, and of WP:SYN, because no third-party references have been provided to establish the notability of the multitude of descendants had by Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. Biruitorul (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• This article highlights the closest familial relationship between six of the seven monarchs of Europe today, a link that can hardly be called tenuous. As for the common ancestors, Queen Victoria and King Christian IX were known as the grandmother of Europe and father-in-law of Europe respectively. This article demonstrates the reasoning behind these nicknames. The close familial ties between the courts of Europe during the First World War are often referenced, but never usually fully examined, and this article provides a thorough analysis. The family trees help to highlight the familial relationships discussed in other articles such as Royal Intermarriage, Victoria of the United Kingdom and Christian IX of Denmark. This article could perhaps use some more details about the royals included emphasizing the importance of their relationship between each other but completely deleting it seems a bit extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.233.137 (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No. What the article needs is proof, in the form of cited sources, that this idea isn't a novel theory that you have invented yourself. Thus far, it has none at all. Theories are not acceptable here without such proof. Uncle G (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f52/september-2007-newsletter-queen-victoria-king-christian-s-descendants-13484.html a valid source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.233.137 (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's a self-published source. Biruitorul (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So then for the same reason should the following articles also be deleted:

• Descent of Elizabeth II from William I
• Descent of Elizabeth II from Cerdic
• Genealogy of the British Royal Family —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.233.137 (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Do see WP:WAX, and focus on the current article. Forums are not reliable sources. Moreover, those articles focus on one individual each; there's no evidence these two should be linked together. Biruitorul (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Divide Descendants of each of them is a suitable separate topic, and not OR. The sources given in the article are reliable enough for that. DGG (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Do either of these quotations from Wikipedia help bring the two individuals together?

The great dynastical success of the six children, was to a great extent not the accomplishment of Christian IX himself, but due to Louise's dynastic ambitions. Some have compared her dynastic capabilities with the ones of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom
- Louise of Hesse-Kassel and Christian IX of Denmark

In early twentieth century Europe, the grandchildren of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX were prevalent throughout most of Europe's royal courts
- Royal intermarriage

• Keep - the endogamy of European royalty is well-known. Whatever the objections to the citation of a newsletter, there are four books cited, which is quite good enough. I would oppose split, as I suspect this would merely produce repetition. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 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.