Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Chevrons (UK band)

The Chevrons (UK band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Complete lack of notability, no updates since tagged for notability in Aug07 Booglamay (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Its a stub. Articles don't have to grow to be kept. It is not an advertisement, and it is encyclopedically written. There is no reason to delete this page. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There is nothing in the article that demonstrates that this group passes WP:MUSIC in any way whatsoever.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Couldn't find much from a Google search. The 3 CDs appear to be self-released, and their current tour appears to be limited to pub venues in the London area. Without some significant independent coverage, I don't think we can keep this. If some demonstration of passing WP:MUSIC could be added, I would be happy to reconsider.--Michig (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Nor could I. No evidence that this passes WP:MUSIC. Stubs aren't immune to challenge just because they're stubs.  RGTraynor  10:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• KeepWeak Keep: The band seems to be quite notable. They do have a website of their own. It just requires more references and citations -
  Rustam
  06:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Just out of curiosity, what elements of WP:MUSIC do you believe this band fulfills, and upon what basis do you conclude that it "seems to be quite notable?"  RGTraynor  09:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You (Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006)

You (Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I don't believe the recognition of "You" as Time's 2006 Person of the Year is worthy of its own article. I understand there is no relevant person article, but my point still stands. -- tariqabjotu 22:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The existence of a category called Time magazine Persons of the Year demonstrates that the magazine's choices for it's "man" or "person" of the year are considered notable. The article about "You" as the person of the year includes the criticism of that particular editorial decision. Needless to say, I can't take offense because it wasn't about "Me". Mandsford (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My issue is not with the notability of Time's Person of the Year feature. I believe, for example, that the naming of a subject as Time's Person/Man/Object of the Year ought to be noted in each subjects' article. This question is over whether this should have its own article or whether the 2006 recognition should simply be noted in some other article (like Web 2.0). -- tariqabjotu 00:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it's actually one of those that will likely be remembered for a long time, like the time they named the PC. In this form, of course, no (two blogs?). But There was plenty of coverage of the incident including a bevy of critical commentary. --Dhartung | Talk 23:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe that it is worthy, both in isolation, and as part of the series of annual articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per everyone, but that's a weaker keep than everyone else. WP:NOT#NEWS is one thing to bear in mind, although it doesn't apply here in the same way as it does in many other cases.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge into the short Person of the Year article. This would meet any concern some readers might be confused that there isn't a Wikipedia article for the subject that year. Just because Time makes a(nother) idiotic editorial decision doesn't mean we have to blindly follow it. This one was almost universally panned. For years, the magazine has been using this feature as a way to sell magazines at the expense of serious consideration of who has actually been the person who most met the stated criteria (the person who most affected the news of the year). It's silly of us to take their silliness seriously, and it misleads readers into thinking that this subject is worthy of the coverage that a typical Wikipedia article is expected to get. It isn't. It's worth a section of another article. So often with this feature the annual decision isn't journalism, it's marketing, and we can cover it just as well without creating an article that no one is going to independently figure out the name of. Noroton (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: IMHO it was a stupid and infamous choice, but due to the prominence of the award it deserves its own article. It should not be merged with "You" or "Person of the Year", as it would dilute the importance of these two significant articles. Kransky (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs more sources, but the topic is notable - I guess that it could be argued that if Time ever picked a previously non-notable person as their person of the year that person would become notable so this article seems reasonable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Come on, *I* was nominated as person of the year! If that is not notable, I don't know what is... Seriously, this was a well-documented event, and rises above daily news. It will be better remembered than many other persons of the year. Famous or infamous, it was newsworthy and is noteworthy. --Aleph-4 (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The nom hasn't provided any deletion rationale other than "not worthy" and no one has in this AfD either. This is the kind of subject that, if properly written, could end up as a main page feature article. --Smashville^BONK! 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is notable (as it is a departure from a well known publication's practices) and since the other Time Magazine "People of the Year" have articles this one should as well (my opinion is that if it is a Time Magazine "Person of the Year" then that 'person' is automatically notable). Further, since it does not seem to fit into the context of You than I believe it should have its own article. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, like all other persons of the year, this choice was covered by many other media. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, I doubt this warrants an article by itself, however, I believe it would be better as section of the Person of the Year page. It is not too long to be an individual section, and (as other Person of the Year choices do not recieve articles of their own) it should not recieve an article of it's own. Additionally, the media attention it recieved is more of a news event. Polarbear97 (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As valid as the other 'People of the Year', as the choice was widely covered by print media as part of the Web 2.0 revolution. ><RichardΩ612 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As per everyone else. Also this article has complete merit and as such should be allowed a page. Thanks, H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly a notable topic. — Save_Us_229 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is notable. --Avala (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is clearly a notable article. Dunfermline Scholar (talk) 00:07, 30 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 WP:SNOW as failing the biography rules generally and the guidelines for biographies of living persons specifically. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tara hinds

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

Non-notable choir director. Claims of notability. Corvus cornix_talk 21:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless it can be explained why these awards are significant.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No context in the article, much less evidence of notability. --Orlady (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, practically the first word is "accomplished" but as I frequently point out accomplishment is not notability, otherwise we'd be a directory of everyone who does their job well enough to not get fired. Also, "friends with renowned X Joe Blow" is one of those telltales of desperation. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• comment After googling "Alexander Huseman", I deleted the sentence "Tara is great friends with world renound airport builder, scientist, muscian, musical artist, and athlete Alexander Huseman.". Call me bold... Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete googling "Tara hinds" "mount carmel" generates one lone blog hit. I'm not convinced this isn't a hoax, and I'd hate to have to falsify Geogre's_Law. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If people hesitate whether this may be a hoax, then this clearly does not concern a notable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusio (talk • contribs) 10:51, 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 Keep. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008

Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page is not an encyclopaedia article, it is a list of statistics. In the past it has been shown that there is a consensus that such lists should not be included in Wikipedia as independent articles. This is also stated in policy at WP:NOT#STATS. An article about opinion polling for the election citing sourced individual polls, trends, commentary analysis might make an appropriate article, long lists of statistics do not. Wikipdia is an encyclopaedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information, just because soemthing exists and is verifiable does not mean it should have an article.

Note - I am aware that until recently this article was mentioned in the policy I feel the article violates, having been added nearly three months ago - see [1] - the change appears to have not been discussed; I do not think it reflected consensus and contradicted the intent of the policy.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

Opinion polling by state for the United States presidential election, 2008

Graphical representations of two-way-contest opinion polling data from the United States presidential election, 2008

Opinion polling for the Democratic Party (United States) 2008 presidential candidates

Opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) 2008 presidential candidates

Opinion polling for the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008

Opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008
Guest9999 (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I found it confusing that the nominator had linked all of the listed pages to come to this location. Some people may be responding to the AFD for a particular page. I queried the nominator, all seven are under discussion. See: the conversation at my talk page.
  You may wish to specify the particular article you're responding to.
  Yellowdesk (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Multiple article listing per AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion.." On each of the remaining articles, at the top insert the following:"

{{subst:afd1|PageName}} .."Replace PageName with the name of the first page to be deleted, not the current page name...--Hu12 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki if an appropriate target exists (perhaps Wikinews could make some use of it, even if not in that form, or an appropriate Wikibook exists?), else delete. The information might be useful and appropriate somewhere, but simple lists of statistics are not encyclopedia articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep You argue that there's a consensus that lists should not be included in Wikipedia. How about linking to that policy, or previous discussions to support this claim? I would agree that there are many, many instances where information could be better presented as prose rather than a list, and in those cases lists should be discouraged. But lists are an effective means of conveying information, and definitely have an important role in any encyclopedia. Opinion polling is, though certainly imperfect, perhaps the only objective means of measuring candidates' performance in an election campaign. Properly sourced lists of polling results are an appropriate means of documenting the election. I would support the transwiki proposal, but I feel that an encyclopedia is the appropriate place for this information.Alcuin (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nominator did not say that in the past the consensus had been that lists (in general) should not be included, but that such [long and sprawling] lists of statistics should not be included. You asked for linking to that policy? Well, the nominator did. In case you missed it, here it is again: WP:NOT#STATS.  --Lambiam 21:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply As mentioned above (thank you) I did not say that there was a consensus that lists should not be included in Wikipedia. This is clearly not the case (see WP:LIST, WP:SAL, WP:WIAFL, Category:Lists); I said that there is a consensus that long "lists of statistics" should not be included and linked to the policy that says as much WP:NOT#STATS. I do not agree that a list of poll results is an effective way of communicating information, I feel that an article based on commentry of analysis of the polls and trends shown by the polls would be far more informative than a long list of numbers. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]]
      • Reply WP:NOT#STATS doesn't support the nominator's arguments. WP:NOT#STATS simply states that lists can potentially be confusing to readers, and to avoid that, sufficient context should be used and infoboxes or tables should be considered when appropriate. These articles already provide sufficient context, and employ tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcuin (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The Manhattan telephone directory is more useful than this.  --Lambiam 21:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That is 150% untrue, and not funny at all. I wouldn't count your vote for beans, cause your vote has no real reason attached. Fresheneesz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The argument is, of course, that these articles violate WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOT#STATS. I agree that that is not funny. It was not meant to be. With the Manhattan directory, I can look up the phone number of a friend on the Lower East Side, which is imaginable I might want to do. To me it is unimaginable that I might want to look up how Hillary Clinton did against Mitt Romney in the last Newsweek Poll of June 2007. People who can do something meaningful with such raw data, such as political scientists, wouldn't collect the data from an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  --Lambiam 01:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, articles related to US presidents are exempted from such policies. See e.g. Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency. --Vsion (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Any reasoning behind this? The fact that enough lists exist to form a category does not mean that any list on a topic is exempt from policy. Would List of the lengths of U.S. Presidents' big toes be an acceptable article? [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]]
• Keep I would say, wait until the primaries are over and then clean up (or delete) this page.213.118.17.177 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)— 213.118.17.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Just wondering, why have you linked to the talk page of an unregistered user account? [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]]
    • My mistake.NicolasRa (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)— NicolasRa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • I wonder why this would deny my opinion on this topic. I'm a frequent reader of these pages and I have posted on other wikipedia pages in other languages but by using other accounts.
• Delete. It is not encyclopedic. -- Mentifisto 23:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Difficult to use. Dificult to read. Not a list, but several lists without explanation. Not an article. An article could describe other web pages that consolidate this information. Basically a list of links. The topic has a potential as a history of polling for this election, but not in this form. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. These articles present reliably sourced information, in a more straightforward way than could be accomplished with prose. The content is clearly notable, factual, and meaningful to a broad readership, so assertions that it is "unencyclopedic" require further explanation. All that is needed to satisfy WP:NOT#STAT is some improvement to the prose which places the data in context—this is hardly reason to delete the articles. — Swpb^talk.edits 00:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It is encyclopedic! It is very informative and gives a clear meaning to the opinion polls. And isn't an encyclopedia suppose to be as informative as possible - without Opinion Polls for a subject like the 08 elections - it would be a rubbish article. Samaster1991 (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The information is reasonably organized and seems sourced. A very many editors have been interested in and have edited the page. Even thinking about deleting it seems rather ridiculous to me. Fresheneesz (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Vsion. ViperSnake151 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, these pages are useful and that is all that matters. I think some editors are interpreting wikirules too strictly, this is a classic case of WP:COMMONSENSE.--STX 02:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A Policy says Wikipedia should not contain sprawling lists of statistics, to me common sense would be deleting articles which are comprised only of sprawling lists of statistics. Any page could be useful, an advertisement is useful to some one who wants the product, a guide is useful to someone visiting a city, an artile about my (theoretical) band is useful to people who want more information on non-existant British musical acts. Being useful(links to essay) is not an inclusion criteria in an encyclopaedia. [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]]
• Strong Keep, per Samaster1991. --Tdl1060 (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT#STATS, and all lack context; this stuff does not belong in an encyclopedia, and there's absolutely no way to make sense of it. Most keep arguments above are WP:USEFUL, and any number of editors being involved in an article does not make it exempt to policy (the argument that articles relating to presidents is absolutely ludicrous and should be discounted). --Coredesat 03:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. per WP:NOT#STATS, Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Agree strongly with Coredesat's reasoning towards keep arguments. --Hu12 (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, I actually found this article to be very useful for someone who is interested in these statistics. They are encyclopedic because it is historical information about the opinion of presidential primary contenders for the 2008 elections. I didn't create this article, but I would like to see it stay. Additionally, there are few other sites that have organized these polls in such a way. I find this information particularly under "other polls" to be very interesting. If you don't find this to be the case, then don't read it. Wikipedia is all about the dissemination of information, and this is valuable and interesting information. And P.S. this is not a simple list. This information would take forever to gather from 50 different places, which (at least) makes it a complex list. Just my two cents. --71.0.101.101 (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)— 71.0.101.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep, WP:NOT#STATS states that lists should be put in context, and I personally think that there is a sufficient amount of text explaining what the tables are about so that they are not confusing, the page has a high level of readability, and I feel they are sufficiently put in context. Maybe further clarity is needed? Luckydevil713 (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)— Luckydevil713 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • How is one sentence that basicly says the "this is a list of..." sufficient context for in some cases, around 50 lists of polls? [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]]
    • How is it insufficient, if it explains exactly what is to follow? Is there some ratio of prose characters to tabular characters that indicates insufficient context? — Swpb^talk.edits 01:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is encyclopedic information from reliable and verifiable sources. WP:NOT#INFO can always be counted on as an excuse for deletion, and we are not left wanting here. Unfortunately, all of this information is rather clearly-defined and discriminate. This is an encylcopedia, and this is the information that belongs here. Alansohn (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#INFO could always be given as a reason for deletion but when there is a section dealing exclusively with this type of article (sprawling lists) you'd think it would carry a bit more weight. The fact that the articles themselves discriminate is irrelevent (wouldn't every possible article except for List of Everything), WP:NOT#INFO is about how Wikipedia dicriminates, not individual articles. [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]]
• Keep, for the reasons well-expressed by others. --Ben Best (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Getting rid of these articles is taking away information about an upcoming U.S Presidental Election. This is not right. America69 (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a guide, it is an encyclopaedia; should we post transcripts of candidates campaign ads as well? [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]]
    • Problem is that WP:NOT#GUIDE specifically lists 1) Instruction manuals, 2) Travel guides, 3) Internet guides and 4) Textbooks and annotated texts as falling under its rubric, none of which have anything to do with the articles listed in this AfD. And besides, if we delete this article, don't we have to delete the articles for all candidates? After, all isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is a bit flawed, but that means changes are needed. Deletion is not warranted. More text, fewer straight lists, etc. Opinion polling for this election is certainly notable and encyclopedic and what's here (stubby though the text may be) is valuable. Perhaps we could summarize old polls in text form, only list the more recent polls in table form, and discuss a lot more. Thinking to the future, we will definitely want much of this information (again, probably in a summarized form). Concerning the present, it's clear that this is a widely used resource. This page doesn't warrant deletion at all, but it would be a particular shame to delete it this close to voting when so many external sources are linking in here. --Aranae (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Swpb, User:Luckydevil713. Rami R 18:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I check this article every day in the lead-up to state primaries. Its a wonderful collection of polls that keeps me informed, rather than depending on 24-hour news networks who only pay attention to their own polls. Coffee and TV (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Hi everyone. I apologise for probably violating loads of protocol. My opinion on this matter is that this article is quite simply very useful, which I think along with 'existing' and 'being verifiable,' -does- qualify it to remain. While it is certainly not a conventional encyclopedia article -now-, that is because the parameter these polls are trying to estimate has not been realised yet. Once the primaries are held, it will be possible to reflect and analyse, decide which polls were most accurate, trying to make out if whether trends were discernible, weighing the pitfalls of comparing data from different polling companies, &c. All of this data -will be- crucial for the future article about the 2008 primaries to which these pages will naturally turn. That article, I think everyone can agree, will be a conventional encyclopedia article, and very much strengthened by the retention of these articles now. -anticlimacus— 76.242.38.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Very useful compilation of polling statistics that is unique. Probably more almanacic than encyclopedic, but a very useful, insightful article. The synthesis and analysis are largely graphic in nature, but wholly proper for this environment. Dawginroswell (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Ridiculously Strong Keep. Superb encyclopedic article. I visit it all the time, and I've referenced it in conversation as an example of what's great about the wikipedia. I think that a lot of times people vote for the deletion of articles on the basis that they're not encyclopedic when in fact the only thing that's kept such articles out of encyclopediae in the past is the limitation of previous technologies. The encyclopédistes would have written hymns of praise to this article, and I would too if I could write. Kennethmyers (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is very helpful info on the upcoming primaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.147.220 (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Same as all the above. A useful set of articles to which I refer to quite often. Hektor (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. In addition to being useful, the information is well-organized and deals with a very specific subject. I don't think this qualifies as 'sprawling'. 151.204.231.247 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)— 151.204.231.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. Well, my thoughts are pretty subjective, in that I have generated 25 some pages of line graphs and bar charts for the 'Graphical Representation' page. This is my first Wiki contribution, though I have been a fan for years. I stumbled onto the page with all that data shortly after it was created, and it was far superior to any of the other entries you get from an 'election polls' google, in that all the polls going way back are on the same page. Then I noticed the Graphics link, and for some reason my Firefox browser didn't see any of the charts done by Robapalooza ... I thought the pages had perhaps been created with an outline, inviting someone to create some graphs, so I did, posting links to web pages I generated. It was not until maybe a month later that I happened to look at the page in IE, and there were all those marvelous charts done by Rob. So, I have tried to structure my charts since as support data. Saw the advice to provide some verbal context the other day, but, being a newbie, I feel like it's Rob's page.
  I feel like the graphs of polling data are a vital part of understanding what might go on in what I consider to be a very important election. The data is arranged on the 'Opinion Polling' page in such a way as to make it very easy to update the graphs, which I would plan to do frequently as the election draws near.
  I have a program that tells who hits which of the above pages on a moment to moment basis, geographic locations of visitors are from all over the place, and daily volumes are building steadily. Hkball (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)— Hkball (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. While the data itself may be bad, the graphs (and trends) that result from the data, the current leaders in states that result from the data, and the trends observable simply by looking at the data are all valuable. None of that could exist without the data. If you were to remove the data, there would still be a need to indicate leaders in various articles. This would cause a lot of dispute about the merits of various polls. Perpetualization (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, Keep per WP:IAR. Perpetualization (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. As User:Southern Texas mentioned above, this is a issue of common sense. These polls are not just meaningless statistics, they are used to track the status of the candidates through out the election and are a key fundamental in political campaigns. I think deleting them would be a huge mistake. Rtr10 (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It's worth noting that these pages get visitors from all over and outside the normal sphere of wikipedia editors. Political sites and blogs link into here. It's possible that some of the above "voters" are questionable, but I think it's more likely they are good faith small-scale contributors that are here largely for the election coverage. With voting starting in a matter of days, you managed to pick just about the busiest time for visitors to put these articles up for deletion. I make this statement for what it's worth in determining consensus as many of these individuals are probably real and large in number, but may also have limited experience with wikipedia as a whole. My opinion (note: I have "voted" above) is that those who advocate deletion have outlined flaws in the pages (why the pages needs work), but have not given sufficient reason as to why they need to be deleted as opposed to just improved upon. --Aranae (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. In order for this to be an unbiased article, it must not exclude some polling methods and samples while including others - unless the heading is changed. The merits and disadvantages of various methodology must be explored - not relegated to discussions. Graphs would be fine if they were all-inclusive, or at least separated by categories, questions, candidates included, &c. As it is, the graphs are misleading, and provide ample opportunity for the manipulation of statistics. As covered and outlined in the article's discussion page, this article would require a major rewrite. Until then, it must go. JLMadrigal (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article is verifiable, encyclopedic, and very useful information. You might not find this information in a regular encyclopedia (just try and find the opinion polling for the primaries by state for the 1976 election in your World Book), but I think that's the entire point of the Wikipedia, we can put more information in here. I think it's silly that we're even discussing deleting these articles. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the individual polls, with their statistics, are widely reported and thus meet the WP requirements. DGG (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. These articles are valuable in describing the history of the 2008 presidential campaign. I have used them several times as very useful link targets from the individual candidates' campaign articles, to support assertions such as "X led Democratic national polls for most of the year" or "throughout 2007, Y never rose above 3 percent in Republican national polls". Without having these articles, I'd have to put together a long string of cites hoping to fairly represent poll results. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I refer to this article frequently to get an overall picture of Republican polling for the election. 75.14.210.121 (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC) (That was me. The Jade Knight (talk))
• Delete because Wikipedia is not an index of external links or an indiscriminate list of things (even when those things are opinions polls about presidential elections). This may be useful but it is not an encyclopedia article. Move it someplace else. Rossami (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is discriminate, verfiable, notable, and encyclopedic information concerning an election for the highest political office in a superpower. I check these articles probably at least once a week. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I have also relied on this page frequently, but I have to agree that this is not really encyclopedia material. I don't think the purpose of wikipedia is to give up-to-date current affairs statistics or serve as a bookmarks page for such data. The utility of the page is not an argument for it being proper content. I think that it would be appropriate for someone who objects to this page's deletion to volunteer to maintain and host it or a similar page on a non-encyclopedia wiki or similar site. Perhaps it belongs on the Political Science Wiki. Chriscorbell (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There's nothing more encyclopedic than this: it is important to know the course of the campaign by reading poll numbers. --Checco (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The ongoing nature of United States Presidential nominations is noteworthy. Blah42 (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As the person who created the Polling By State page, I'll just say that my intention was to help out those people who would like to see how various candidates fare in state-by-state head-to-head match-ups, which some may consider useful in deciding for whom to vote. I understand the Wikipedia policy, and I agree that much of the information could be removed without really impacting the page's relevance. For example, a single poll result per state, or an average or trend line for each state, might be retained, and a narrative text summarizing the use, issues in polling methodology, etc., might be included. The question then becomes, which poll result to keep (latest poll? 5-poll rolling average? regression analysis?). I would very much like to have seen these issues raised on the discussion pages of the sites in question, rather than having them nominated for deletion. Doktorliability (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. These pages meet the basic policies of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV; they are extremely useful; and they do provide more encyclopedic context than mere lists of numbers. I think that they are necessary adjuncts to the main election articles, but might be convinced that a transwiki was appropriate if a suitable target can be identified. However, unless obne is found this information should be kept. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, I really don't see a case for nominating this at all. Other election articles usually have sections on polling before the election; in this election's case, the polling section got so large that it was more sensible to split it into its own article. Verifiable, useful, encyclopedic, cited content -- so why delete? —Nightstallion 10:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, This is an excellent example of the virtues of Wikipedia -- user-provided, content-rich, fact-based, useful information. - ArkansasRed (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)This user has made few or no other edits since December 2006 outside this topic.
• Delete Well done to the nominator for focusing discussion on this issue. I agree that this clearly falls outside our policies as outlined in the nomination and further smacks of the unencyclopedic recentism that we have made a concerted effort to discourage. I suggest this be brought to DRV one way or the other to elaborate on what consensus our policies suggest, since the morass of competing opinion above lacks focus. Eusebeus (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but get rid of some of the older data. A lot of this page is useful, such as knowing who is ahead in each state, and to have the map without data would be ridiculous. I do find the page a bit big, if we were to restrict it to polls from November on it might be an improvement. William Quill (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Virtually every election page includes a section on opinion poling. Numerous major elections have separate articles. If you think this should go, then so should Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2006, Opinion polling for the Russian presidential election, 2008, and all of Category:Polling. These pages lack context not because they are unencyclopedia or incomplete, but because they are subarticles from the main page United States presidential election, 2008, as noted by the link at the very top of the page.--Patrick Ѻ 18:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Very important and useful article. —V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and update - per everyone else who said keep. EvanS • talk |sign here 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Part of the importance (and fun) of tracking the poll data is watching the ebbs and flows of the line graphs from month to month of the various one-on-one matchups, as events occur in the world. For this reason it is necessary to retain the older data. Hkball (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Here is the full text of WP:NOT#STATS:
  

Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.

It doesn't in any manner ban lists. It simply states some statistical lists are "confusing" and even offers suggestions on readability (explanatory text and including infoboxes). With only referencing WP:NOT#STATS and referring to perceived past consensus, the nominator has given no valid reason to delete this article --Oakshade (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The nominator has given very strong reason toimprove the article and none for deleting it. Do we really think that history won't care wht the polls were saying after the election is over. Read about the 2004 election where all everyone talks about is how Dean was ahead or it was Dean vs. Gephart in IA, yet Kerry won there. These numbers are notable, they just need some better presentation. --Aranae (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep please people, break all the rules if rules determine that these incredibly useful articles are to be deleted. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 08:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is an incredibly useful source of information, probably one of the best on the web. Ruaraidh-dobson (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, verifiable, and presents significant context. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball keep. WP:NOT#STATS does not apply in this case. It is a large list, yes, but easily navigable because of the TOC. The information is clearly verifiable and discriminate, however, the article could use improvement. Last I checked AfD is not cleanup. I propose snowball keep because the number of keeps and strong keeps far outweighs the deletes. --Son (talk) 16:19, 30 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 List of Sex and the City episodes. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution (SATC episode)

Evolution (SATC episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT. Article on an unnotable Sex and the City episode that simply gives the episode plot. Has been tagged for notability issues for over a month and for clean up for two months without any attempt to address the issues. Merge unneeded as list of already provides an episode summary along with director and writer. Failed PROD. Collectonian (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect for failing WP:EPISODE. I guess some reviews could be dug up for Sex and the City as a quite popular show, so there might be some real-world information somewhere, but notability is not demonstrated, so the article shouldn't exist, especially after one month of tagging. Waiting for WP:HEY. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Sex and the City episodes. No notable content per WP:EPISODE.Obina (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per WP:EPISODE and please "avoid listing episodes for AfD". DHowell (talk) 06:48, 29 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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Utah Preparatory Academy

Utah Preparatory Academy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is written like an advertisement (content appears to be directly from school's promotional materials) and does not assert topic's importance/notability. (Indeed, it doesn't even actually say that it's a school.) In a quick web search, I failed to find any evidence of notability. I don't think the school merits an article. If it does merit an article, a completely new article needs to be written. Orlady (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Orlady (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for deletion. The Boys Ranch is a subsidiary of the Academy. The article about the boys ranch has essentially the same issues (in fact, it has much of the same content) as the Academy article:

Utah Preparatory Academy Boys Ranch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

--Orlady (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I... fixed it up. In 5 minutes. You could have done that. Yeah, you. Keep. Fresheneesz (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• holy crap it's not a school after all-then what makes it notable, Fresheneesz? Wikipedia is not a directory of rehab joints. Delete as nonnotable. Chris (クリス) (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable rehab facility. Keep it civil everyone. --Smashville^BONK! 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 29 Google hits, out of which I couldn't find enough reliable, independent sources to create a neutral article out of. No Google News hits. No Google News Archives hits. If it could be shown that adequate sources are out there, I'd change my mind. Noroton (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:37, 29 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.

NOTE The closing of the above AfD is incomplete. The second school co-nommed has not been dispositioned. A message has been left for the closing admin to remedy this. Before closing-out and archiving the associated log, please ensure this other school is properly dispositioned or relisted. The article still bears the AFD notice which references this discussion page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• closing for this AFD has been modified to delete both by the original closer. Second article has been deleted. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete--Tone 14:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Makoa combatives

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

Non-notable martial art. Created by a User with a conflict of interest. Has been speedied once before. Creator keeps removing the speedy tag, and now my speedy tag has been removed by another editor for what I consider uninformed opinion, so here we are. 7 Google hits. Corvus cornix_talk 18:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete due to lack of notability.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I removed the speedy tag because it was incorrectly used, the tag read " Speedy concern: It is an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Now since when has a martial arts system been a real person? As far as I can tell this article is not legitimately covered by any of the CSD criterion, and AfD is the correct venue. RMHED (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • db-nn is supposed to apply to all non-notable events, organizations, companies, products, etc. I can't help it that the wording of the tag isn't correct, I used the correct tag. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The template got changed - I have reverted it - [2]. Corvus cornix_talk 21:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as being about something which lacks third-party sources unless any care to be provided.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Beginning with "rare and little known" is a dead giveaway to NN. SkierRMH (talk) 22:16, 25 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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film)

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The notability guidelines for future films stipulates that a stand-alone article should not be created until a project enters production. (This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project.) Also, the so-called 2009 release date is not confirmed; it is likely an estimated release year by IMDb, which frequently does so for announced projects. In line with the process found at WP:FUTFILM, there is sufficient detail found at the source material's article, so no information is lost. The film article can be recreated if production begins, and The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (1947 film) should be moved to The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (film) without the 21st century film article set in stone. Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and restore former naming as above. There is nothing, nada, zilch in Google News Archive since Myers was attached to the project in May, which is exactly where it was when previous stars were attached. Could be in D-Hell forever. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:FUTFILM, etc. We are not a directory of films in development. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the notability guidelines for films; should the project enter production, the article can be recreated. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 08:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it probably won't get made in 2009. Alientraveller (talk) 19:16, 29 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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henrik Kreüger

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

Work as teacher or as consulting engineer is not notable enough to warrant a seperate article. No detail and/or references provided about what are his important contributions to ventilation and isolation. May warrant a mention in article of his cousin Ivar Kreuger, but nothing else of note here. -xC- 18:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory of historical persons, even if they have had their lives taken note of in trivial detail by reliable sources. But I don't really know.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as "head master" of RIT seems to be the equivalent of college/university president. We don't seem to have articles on any of these (I didn't check them all), though, but then WP:CSB suggests we might want to account for more limited non-English sources online and for a pre-WWII topic. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• keep I think head of KTH (think Sweden's MIT) passes WP:PROF, Here's the list of heads of KTH (in swedish, cannot find equivalent page in English). Also, he was structural engineer on the radio towers at a UNESCO world heritage site transmitter station [3], [4] [5]. This is mentioned prominently in the bio on wp:sv, but not in this wp:en version. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep; head of a major Swedish university seems to be a notable position. I would say that people who have had their lives take note of in trivial detail by reliable sources are exactly the type of people that deserve Wikipedia articles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Keep Fails (verifiable) WP:BIO. That needs to be fixed. School head is not notable per se. "Contributions" are unsourced and fail WP:V. That needs to be fixed. (changing as I missed the importance of the school and of the position but the WP:V issues need addressing 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)) --Alfadog (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What's not verifiable? [6] is a better source than I've seen for a lot of these articles. Susan Hockfield has an article, and if KTH=MIT, I don't think she's any more notable than Henrik is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, assuming that I have any clue as to what that says, where is the link to that in the article? If something is not sourced properly in the article, then it fails WP:V. And, whether a foreign language citation in the English-language Wikipedia meets WP:V would make for an interesting discussion. Perhaps that question has already been solved, IDK. As regards the other article, please see WP:WAX. --Alfadog (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, it has. WP:RSUE. I would might interpret that as meaning that unless a translation is provided, along with a citation of the original source, the citation fails may fail WP:V. The policy is not worded as well as it should be to clarify what is required of foreign-language sources. --Alfadog (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I read as saying that English-language sources are preferred to non-English sources, if equivalent quality sources can be found, and providing certain requirements if a quote is used in an article. That's all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
          • "that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly." does not relate solely to quotes and that section implies that a translation is available. As I said, not clearly worded. --Alfadog (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Pete Hurd. The president of a major university in Sweden is undoubtedly notable. I have cleaned up the article a little bit and added a reference that Pete mentioned. I have replaced "headmaster" with "president", as that seems a more appropriate translation of the Swedish "föreståndare". Perhaps the creator or somebody else could complete the refence to the "Swedish National Encyklopedia" and make clear what it actually references? --Crusio (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• I fixed the reference to the "Swedish National Encyklopedia" and added the older reference to Nordisk familjebok linked by User:Prosfilaes. The author of this page, User:Lidingo, has not worked on Wikipedia since the 23rd, and is probably away for the holidays. Olaus (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, without doubt. I must admit Alfadog's reading of WP:RSUE sounds quite strange to me, and in all these years has never even touched my mind, and not only mine, as it's been often discussed and quoted.--Aldux (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, as there is a clear consensus that any neutrality and/or accuracy problems with this article are amenable to editorial resolution. John254 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal intoxicants

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

This article will always be either biased, or inaccurate because of the variation among jurisdictions as to what constitutes an illegal drug. Aware of the problem of disparity, an editor has almost amusingly tried to repair it with the tendentious claim in the introduction that the UN's Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is to be used as the universal definition of legality for intoxicants. The article excludes the possibility that all intoxicating substances could be ruled illegal on the basis of effect rather than identity, as is the case in some conservative Islamic states, rendering "legal intoxicants" an oxymoron. There's also the trouble of the Federal Analog Act and others like it that by virtue of their ambiguous glob on the category of chemical species confuse the issue to the point where it's impossible to declare any substance entirely immune from legal attack. This is not a theoretical fault, because there have already been prosecutions for 2C-I which is listed on the page. There's also the issue that the indigenous cultures that use the plant based hallucinogens on this list would object to their characterization as intoxicants which can be read narrowly as substances producing a kind of drunkenness. Characterizing these materials of religious import as such adds a taste of cultural bias to the ripening stew. This article has been tagged by another editor as missing citations since June. deranged bulbasaur 18:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As the definition is from the what the UN considers legal there should be no isue re differing jurisdictions, not sure what Dernged finds amusing in that, and indeed its the first afd reasoning i have seent hat manages to include an attack against another editor, and for actually trying to make the article better. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a valid encyclopedic subject. It may need cleanup, more citations, neutrality checking, but that doesn't require deletion.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Care to actually address any of my concerns? I wrote quite extensively about why this isn't an appropriate encyclopedic topic, but I can't argue my case against a mere assertion. deranged bulbasaur 22:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I have always had concerns about the article; it has potentital to deviate from the individual articles as material (both useful and not so much) is added here rather than to the individual articles. Perhaps it would be better as a List of legal intoxicants, or, more accurately, List of intoxicants and psychoactives not included in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. As long as the article exists, I'll watch it for vandalism, linkspam, and such, but if it went away, I wouldn't be perturbed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The nominator's concerns about bias are noted, but this is absolutely not an indication of any violated policy of Wikipedia. The first sentence, "Legal intoxicants are intoxicating drugs which are not prohibited by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and which people who are seeking intoxication by legal methods use," is certainly beyond controversy, and an encyclopedic discussion of it, if backed by enough reliable sources supporting different views, is the essence of how an article grows and improves. Problems with content do not constitute a reason to delete topics, they indicate that these articles require more care than something about a socially or emotionally neutral one. ◄Zahakiel► 23:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between saying that the article's present content is biased, which thing I have not said, though I think it true, and saying that it's impossible to give neutral coverage to this topic because a bias inheres in it. Everything you said about content problems not being a reason for deletion is completely true and completely irrelevant. Your assertion that the statement "Legal intoxicants are intoxicating drugs which are not prohibited by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" is without controversy astounds me to the point that I don't know how to respond. deranged bulbasaur 23:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Um... no. Let's take a look-see at that statement, "Everything you said about content problems not being a reason for deletion is completely true and completely irrelevant." Well, we are talking about content problems (you haven't objected to anything else except content, and it looks like you're also talking about potential content, which you don't think can be presented in an unbiased manner) and this is a deletion discussion, so no, it's not irrelevant that "content problems are not a reason for deletion." I'm going to stand by that statement, which seems pretty obvious to me. The line I quoted from the article is beyond controversy because it describes intoxicants that are legal. Since the article is actually about legal intoxicants, it's almost a truism. ◄Zahakiel► 02:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

snowball keep- nominator has been talking erm... not been convincing.:) If there are holes in the article as it stands (which is yet to be proven) fix them. It's not an impossible article. Merkinsmum 00:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• • It's cute how you say I've been talking bullshit without actually saying it. I am the only one here who has actually made an argument. You certainly haven't made one. It must be opposite day and I didn't even know. deranged bulbasaur 00:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that I am forced to argue against potential articles rather than this actual one, so I will dutifully argue against List of intoxicants and psychoactives not included in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Now, the convention includes no provision against analogs, so all the tryptamines and phenethylamines excepting the few enumerated chemicals in the convention would need to be added as "legal" under the convention even though they are effectively illegal in practically every signatory country. Already we see that should such an article actually stick to its topic, it would soon progress to an indiscriminate and unwieldy list, which could easily be anticipated by the fact that it's defined in terms of a negative. When listing things that are not among a specific finite set, the number of entities fitting the criteria can usually grow almost unbounded. The utility of such a list, given that it would not coincide with the actual law of any extant country, is small. There we hit on an even deeper problem, because UN "law" is not actually law, but a sort of meta-law that countries agree to implement. It does not directly prohibit anything, so the entire topic is without a solid basis. In implementing this convention, countries have exercised considerable latitude in interpretation. Should the list conform to the Dutch interpretation of the convention that does not prohibit fresh psilocybe mushrooms, or the interpretation of most other countries that it does? Should it conform to the U.S. Congressional interpretation that allows Native American peyote use? What about the recent Supreme Court interpretation that allows religious ayahuasca use? If something is allowed only for religious use, is it legal or illegal? deranged bulbasaur 00:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I would say the big problem with the article is the title. We have an article on the differing legislative approaches to pornography that different countries have, and there is no reason we shouldn't have an equivalent article on psychoactive chemicals. This articles title presupposes that there are always legal intoxicants, and that there are always illegal intoxicants. Neither is true, universally; but that should not prevent an article being created on the different cultural approaches towards intoxicants, and their legality. The article should merely be appropriately named, which this isn't of course. I would note though, that though some cultures define the illegality by purpose rather than chemical content (such as islamic cultures which quite frequently have nothing against a cup of refreshing coffee) and some purport to do so (but still fail to allow purely ritual use of hallucinogens for instance, like the United States), there are very few cultures that don't define their relationship towards intoxicating chemicals in *some* way. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see where "bias" comes in. Its not biased to define "legal drugs" in a particular way. Bias is about opinion - and this article can certainly be non-biased in that way. As for the issue of the definition of legal drug, just say that if the drug is legal in anywhere notable, then its legal, and say where its legal - problem solved. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It is biased to define "legal drugs" in a way that does not congrue with the actual meaning of the words "legal drugs." Taking the topic as legal drugs and then defining legal drugs in terms of a specific document that is just a template for some drugs that should be in theory prohibited among some countries effectively incorporates a fallacy of arbitrary redefinition into the substrate of the article. As for your problem solving proposition, while I commend you for actually offering a solution, your article would be an indiscriminate list for the same reasons I listed in my above comment. It would be populated with an inordinate number of drugs whose legal status is effectively indeterminate for the reasons I gave in my nomination (analog act &c.) There's no way to resolve this emulsion to give drugs that are truly and certainly "legal" in a great many jurisdictions. deranged bulbasaur 02:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article was originally called Legal drugs. The current title of Legal intoxicants is not an improvement because it is too narrow. Much of this article's material is covered by Prohibition (drugs) and Recreational drug use. What's really needed is an overall approach such as a project. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Aspirin is legal drug, as is acetaminophen, phenylephrine, and omeprazole. It was in part for such obviosities as this that the name was changed. Until there is some clarity in what the article is about (even if we all agree that it should be Things you can get high on without going to jail in some countries), it will always be a source of controversy.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete everything in excess becomes intoxicating.. even water.. and it's perfectly legal.. this is a never ending story.. eating raw poultry too.. --Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 02:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think you mean anything in excess can become dangerous, or poisonous. I don't know anyone who would become "intoxicated" in the standard use of that word, by too much water or raw poultry, but it could certainly kill them under the right (wrong) conditions. If you very loosely define an intoxicant as any substance that can alter brain function then an anvil dropped on a person's head or a dose of cyanide is an intoxicant also :) There's a discriminate enough definition that I think an article about those not regulated by law can be sustained. ◄Zahakiel► 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep valid and genuine encyclopedic subject. Article needs improvement and editing.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Care to actually give reasons for that in light of what has already been said? I've given several reasons that this is not the case, and they've all gone unopposed so far. Penny for your thoughts? deranged bulbasaur 15:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Article needs improvement and exrensive re-editing for POV checking and more reference should be given, not deletion.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but change to 'Legal intoxicants by country' or something similar to make it clear that no drug is legal in all countries, and that which is legal in one is not necessarily legal in another. This is a clear example of an article which desperately needs more of a worldwide view. (Perhaps the name should be changed to something like 'List of commonly legal intoxicants'.) Terraxos (talk) 19:55, 28 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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Babikan

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

This article was prodded, with the reason "Non notable, no reliable sources." The problems with finding reliable sources were probably due to a typo in the name of the article: Babikian instead of Babikan. Robert Babikan has raced in a number of racing classes, such as the British GT Championship and the European Le Mans Series. I am bringing this discussion to AFD, to decide on whether racing in such classes constitutes notability. Procedural nomination, no opinion. Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - From my search of results, he ran British GT in 2000 (22nd in the championship), 1 race in 2001, and 1 race in the European Le Mans Series in 2001. No wins, nothing to really make him notable as a driver. The359 (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As a one sentence article it should be deleted, probably near speedy limits as WP:CSD#A1 (no context). That being said, he raced in several quite notable series. Even though he had only a few total races in those series, the criteria needed to satisfy the sanctioning bodies in those series probably make him notable. So my opinion is that starting in just a few races in these internationally well-known series make him inherently notable. This discussion is about his ability to be notable, not the cleanliness and size of the article. Royalbroil 02:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO, no assertion of notability and, all due respect to the previous, I am not inclined to assume that he is notable because he started notable races. --Alfadog (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: According to this site, he won the British Porsche Carrera in 1996. Would that make Babikan notable? It's just a national one-make series. --Pc13 (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Not for me. And as far as the "Le Mans" racing, that was not the 24 Hours of Le Mans, it was a short-lived series that bore the name in which he raced a GT car (lowest class on the track) as, I think, a privateer. Little notability there. --Alfadog (talk) 18:59, 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 Keep non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Webb Miller

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

This article asserts notability but doesn't really show it. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails notability tests such as WP:PROF. Like most college lecturers, has written one or 2 things, but not broken out from the norm.Obina (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable for BLAST. Seems a frequent collaborator and co-author with Eugene Myers. I added some titles to the article. I would say that he meets the barest threshold of WP:BIO. --Alfadog (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A Google scholar search shows, besides a truly ridiculous number of citations to BLAST, many other highly cited works. This is a level of academic impact well above the average professor and I think should be enough to pass WP:PROF #3 and #4. He has also received recent popular press attention (including in National Geographic and the Times of India) for some research involving mammoth DNA, and a broader search finds newspaper coverage of some of his other research as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Without having to do anything other than read the article as it stands, I note that BLAST is highly, highly notable--what percentage of biologists today use it? It's astoundingly high, I'm sure. Moreover a regular collaborator with Gene Myers is likely notable. --Lquilter (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Even someone who's in the least prestigious spot on the list of BLAST authors is notable without any doubt. --Crusio (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:26, 30 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. I'd like to urge participants of the debate to flesh out the merger proposition at the talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter newspapers and magazines

Harry Potter newspapers and magazines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The page describes a fictional topic without any real world context or information - it is effectively a plot summary for a specific part of series of books. It has been decided by consensus and put into policy that articles of this type should not be included in Wikipedia even if they meet standards of verifiability and notability - see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:DEL#REASON (second reason on the list). I do not think that the information and sourcing required to bring the article up to standard - by basing it around real world information such as the development, reaction and critical analysis of the fictional concept - exists at this point in time. Guest9999 (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep adequate notability at this point thanks to the movies as well as the books. JJL (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reply - General consensus is that notability is not inherited (links to an essay), I believe (having not actually been a participant in any of the discussions) that the issue has come up several times in the past and in each instance inherited notability has been rejected by the community. Also since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it has been decided by consensus that certain types of article - such as detailed plot summaries - are not suitable for an encyclopaedia. [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Comment The introduction is currently very short, but that is where notability and tying into all other HP articles is established. Perhaps it just needs some expansion. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the last deletion went to deletion review and was overturned due to the real world notability and significance being clearly established. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No reason was given for the deletion review decision by the closing adim and I would dispute your interpretation. The main points brought up during deletion review were that there was no consensus to delete in the original AfD and that several arguements for deletion simply stated there were no sources - which was incorrect as sources were found during the course of the debate - both of these reasons were perfectly valid. [[Guest9999 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Personally I still do not think that the topic is notable (due to lack of significant coverage by independent secondary sources) but my main point in nomination was that the article is effectively just a detailed plot summary - which are specificly excluded by policy; also note consennsus can change. [[Guest9999 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]]

• Keep I know lots of people use Wiki to write fanfiction, and I know I do. Deleting this would hurt the poeple who want to learn and use this to make their fanfic factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.204.26 (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely people writing fanfiction will have read the books, there is nothing in in this article that is not in the books. If you didn't know already, there is a Harry Potter Wiki [7] which would probably be a better source for any fanfiction you want to write as its content is not limited by such things as notability or the requirement for real world information. It is - likely - compiled and edited by people who have a great interest in and are big fans of Harry Potter who are probably more in touch with the needs of a fanfiction writer than the general Wikipedian. [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)]]

• Delete, still fancruft with no real world notability. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and notability is not inherited. --Coredesat 10:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Harry Potter universe. Despite the real-world sources, there is no real-world content, but I can see why some of the content in this article would be of interest. Yes, Harry Potter universe is already long, but the answer is to trim the unnecessary stuff, not expand the plot into new articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I don't think the article has enough content in it to justify separation from the main universe article. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Insufficient real-world context for an independent article and smacks of fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• What about merging into Fictional books? Lord Opeth (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it concerns a memorable aspect of the film, the article is presented in a discriminate manner, and the article contains references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment every article descriminates (apart from List of Everything) - not a reason to keep. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Therefore, calling this article "indiscriminate" is inaccurate and not a reason to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I do not think anyone has called the article indiscriminate - what people have refered to is the policy WP:NOT#INFO, which states Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection fo information. Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of all information, it is an encyclopaedia and so discriminates in it's content; therefore sometimes even if content may meet standards of [[WP:V|verifyability] and notability (which I do not think this article does) it is deemed not suitable for inclusion. It is essentially a counterpoint to WP:NOT#PAPER: Wikipedia could potentially be about anything but is not. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]]
  • If Wikipedia is established with the goal to "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge", then we can and should be more open-minded with our content than any other encyclopedia. Some think Wikipedia should be a collection of as much factually accurate information as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that some - maybe even a large proportion of Wikipedians - agree with that view, however current policy goes against it (with WP:NOT#INFO and other inclusion criteria) and policy is meant to represent the consensus of the community as a whole (if such a thing actually ever exists). [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]]

• Those pages are also edited practically daily and we also have an ignore all rules policy. Regarding consensus, if a page is deleted and consensus changes to keep it, it is much easier to just leave the article or redirect/merge without deleting so that when consensus does change everyone doesn't have to start over from scratch. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• True, but in that case why delete any article as consensus can always change. If the consensus is that an article shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia now then it shouldn't be in the encyclopaedia now. If consensus does then change, deleted information can be retreived by an admin if it is deemed appropriate. Leaving the history just allows users - who often aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidlines - to go against consensus and spend time creating articles that will be speedy deleted (G4). [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]]

• Truthfully, we probably should not delete any article that is not libelous or a hoax as the community clearly does not have a consensus on what is and is not "encylopedic." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Would you then say that the many current policies and guidelines which deal with inclusion criteria (such as WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NN, WP:OR) are not supported by the consensus of the community? [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)]]

• To some extent, I think it is accurate to say that a sizable segment of our contributors are not entirely in agreement on those policies as their talk pages and edit histories would suggest. Clearly there is no firm consensus on what is and is not notable or what Wikipedia should or should not be, as these clarifications are debated almost constantly. Consider the last couple of weeks of edits to the NOT article. If you look in the edit summaries, you'll see, "rv, it is not an attempt to slant anything, thanks for the assumption of good faith. it's a statement of the way things are," "rv policy alteration with no consensus nor discussion," "you might want to discuss and seek a consensus for that edit," "people keep getting this wrong," etc. With all those reverts, how can I even cite that article as policy, considering that the time at which I might cite it might look notably different than it will a couple of hours and edits later? Thus, we should err on the side of not discouraging or turning off good faith editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the reality is that whatever happens to the policies and guidelines a significant proportion of the community is not going to be happy. If the issue persists the result could well be some kind of schism or exodus from the project. [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)]]

• Well, I definitely agree with you there. By the way, I might not be able to reply again for the next few hours as I am thinking of getting the PPV for UFC 79 to watch with my dad. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per User:Sgeureka. Luckystars (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep-Just needs some work that's all. Sources and what not can come if it is worked on. H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep One thing this article is not is a "detailed plot summary". The subject runs through the entire series, and a detailed plot summary of that would be about 60 timers longer than this article. Even the briefest possible plot summary would be longer than this article. When WP:NOT says "plot" it should br read literally. plot, characters, setting, are all separate elements of fiction. And I dont see what indiscriminate has to do with it--this is about something very specific things, and the more important received the greater coverage. If we started covering all the magazines invented in fan fiction that might be open to reasonable objection. DGG (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• As stated above, the policy in qestion (WP:NOT#INFO states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection if information" as "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The policy is not meant to refer to the topics of individual articles, all topics (apart from List of Everything discriminate information to some extent, making the idea almost meaningless. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]]

• Keep, agree with DGG, appears to be a misunderstanding of WP:NOT.--Aldux (talk) 14:25, 30 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. Bduke (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] O. Richard Bundy

O. Richard Bundy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Is this "music" academic truly notable? This article has been AfD'ed once before in December 2005, and was kept as "no consensus" despite a majority of "delete"s. I still don't think this article shows notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The Penn State Blue Band seems on the right side of notability, and the current director would probably be notable by default. StaticElectric (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete I disagree that notability is inherited as StaticElectric is suggesting. I don't see this passing WP:PROF, I'm willing to be swayed on him passing WP:MUSIC, I'll watch for further debate. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep if the band he conducts is sufficiently notable. I do think in this case the guy who runs the thing has notability. DGG (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• keep Seems notable for his field, given Penn State's size and all. MBisanz 10:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Week Keep per StaticElectric. --VS ^talk 22:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a complete failure to meet any of the notability standards; conducting a notable band doesn't make one notable. There is also a failure to meet the policy requirement of WP:V for much of the article content considering the lack of all sources. TerriersFan (talk) 22:45, 31 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--Tone 14:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organisms that are dangerous to humans

Organisms that are dangerous to humans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list is highly indiscriminate and vague. It is woefully incomplete and has little hope of ever reaching completion. It purports to list, among other things, all animals that have been known to injure humans in self-defense. Practically all animals, even docile ones, have some instinct of self-preservation that will make them lash out at an attacker. It is hard for me to conjure an example of an animal that either does not lash out at an aggressor, or that completely lacks the means wherewith to cause some injury to man. Any such pathetic creature would be evolutionarily disadvantaged to the point of preclusion from existence. Even promising examples like small frogs or caterpillars will usually contain at least a mild toxin or have the capacity to bite, at least in theory. However, even if that would not make this voluminous enough, then we come to the plants. Most plants are toxic. Even when this toxicity does not rise to the level of notoriety or lethality, plants are known for their secondary metabolites which generally have structures (alkaloidal, for example) wherein some degree of pharmacological effect is almost inevitable. Even plants that are commonly eaten will usually have some part other than the edible one that contains a toxin. Issues of vagueness arise from consideration of whether allergens, such as peanuts, fall within purview of this list. There are also plants such as cycads that inherit some measure of toxicity from a symbiote (e.g. a cyanobacterium), raising yet another issue of vagueness. The same issues for plants also apply to fungi. Then we come to the microbes. Some of the microbes already listed are almost exclusively infective to those with compromised immune systems (e.g. Bacillus subtilis), being otherwise innocuous. Given that in cases such as AIDS even one's own healthy gut flora can cause infection, we come to the now familiar situation where it would be hard to exclude any organism from the list. In abstract, there's nothing wrong with simply drawing the line, but it's too involved an issue to be handled in a disinterested way for a topic as broad as this one. deranged bulbasaur 17:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Theoretically, any organism bigger than a dime could be dangerous to a human, if it got lodged in their esophagus and caused them to choke. Highly indiscriminate list. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Changing vote to wait until this article can be rewritten, since the creator seems motivated to redevelop it. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - if completed the list would include pretty much every organism. [[Guest9999 (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]]
• Weak keep if converted to List of organisms which have been verified as having attacked humans which I feel would be the most encyclopedic and objective format for such a list (not necessarily at that exact page title, but with that concept). What do people make of this idea? It'd render the neutrality concerns moot.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - even the rename suggested by HSR would have its inherent oddities. Given that, as pointed out, anything could kill a human, the list becomes pretty indiscriminate very quickly. Grutness...wha? 22:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There's a worthy, and possibly-workable, idea in there somewhere, but as it currently framed this list is too broadly defined. --Lockley (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, joke. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to "List of..." or Categorize contents. Flibirigit (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There seems to be a fair bit of work that went into this, and it's an interesting topic. I disagree that the majority of oganisms are dangerous to humans (dangerous = can do permanent harm / are life threatening in a normal interaction), there's plenty of organisms for whom we're simply not a typical predator so they don't need defense, or which use other tactics for survival.

Just because rabits can't kick a tiger's ass it dosen't mean they're extinct, there's also running, living in a different habitat, multiplying like well.. rabbits :D, you get the ideea. Maybe it should list organisms by number of fatalities per year or something so that we can eliminate the theoretical cases that never really happen and get a relevant picture. If there's an article like that already it could be merged/checked with that.--Helixdq (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I lol'd at this page. It is, for the reasons addressed above, clearly an indiscrimiate list. There might be something in shifting the page to a page of animals that are notoriously dangerous to humans, but how we would define that, I don't know. I believe the current form should be deleted, with the possibility of recreation with much more defined criteria. I (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I created the page a year or two ago because I thought it was a topic that interested people. Judging by the number of edits, I feel that was a fair assessment. Even though the definition of "dangerous to humans" is ambiguous, I don't think readers are at risk of being misled: anyone who is curious will link to the articles that interest them, on the various organisms. The key strength that Wikipedia has over Encylopaedia Britannica, other than its larger content, is its richness of linking and listing. The supposed consensus that Wikipedia is not a list is total pap: referencing and indexing and listing are all closely related, and they are how we humans organize knowledge. The real question is this: Does this article mislead or confuse readers or waste their time? No, the topic is relevant, and the article can be improved.Anthony717 (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Update: I'm encouraged to respond constructively by altering the article's name and contents to comply with my original intent: Name, "Deadly organisms", and first paragraph, "This is a list of organisms that are known to kill humans. Inclusion on this list requires a certain notoriety, such as that gained from news reports; and each included organism must have repeatedly killed humans in a certain way. For the sake of inclusiveness, "organisms" includes viruses, in addition to animals, plants and others." The list would be drastically pared down, and inclusion of any contested organism would need to be defended by two references.Anthony717 (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'm starting to think full keep now. It's an encyclopedic topic that needs cleanup, sourcing, etcetera, but not deletion.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, animal attack redirects here. We should have an encyclopedic article on the concept of the animal attack as suffered by the likes of Timothy Treadwell and Steve Irwin.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete article is non-notable per WP:N, highly ambiguous and not supportable given the high number of potentially dangerous organisms to humans. Mh29255 (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I still stand by my nomination despite the rewrite. The new premise is better than the old one, but most of the original concerns still apply. I encourage everyone who's enthusiastic about the rewrite to take the time to actually read the nomination, since I spent considerable time developing my reasoning there. In fact, this list has the potential to be even more arbitrary in a sense, because basing it on number and severity of reported incidents will give undue weight to organisms with which humans have routine contact. Canis familiaris is bound to remain, even though fatal dog attack is unlikely from any given animal, simply because the dog is such a common creature. The peanut example from the nomination exemplifies the same problem. There are plenty of very toxic plants that are unlikely to produce fatalities simply because they are bitter tasting, but how many people have died from anaphylaxis due to peanut? deranged bulbasaur 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Here are a few more problems with the new version from the top of my head: horse riding accidents, rabies and syphilis. Does the horse belong on the list? There are plenty of fatalities to choose from, many of which are the result of the horse's direct action (say, bucking the rider off ), still it doesn't sit right with me that an animal should be on a list of deadly organisms just because people fall off of it and die. Rabies has the potential to make just about any mammal deadly. Fatalities due to rabies (a horrible disease) are fortunately a thing of the past as far as I know, but historical occurrences are easy to come by. Syphilis is an example of a disease organism that has completely succumbed to antibiotic therapy, and there's little danger of missing the symptoms so that it goes untreated. Is a once dangerous organism still game even if it is not dangerous anymore? Anybody have a story of someone gored by an Aurochs? deranged bulbasaur 01:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Continuing to defend: I have made quite a few changes. The definition of "deadly" can be made very precise, and that by consensus. We could give a general minimum of about 100 proven deaths per organism, with allowances for a few notables. We could rule out most rabies vectors, except bats generally ("the bat"), since they include many otherwise non-deadly mammals, like raccoons. The total number of organisms is unlikely to exceed 250. Considering all the shows on cable television about sharks and the like, a "one stop" list for readers to link to other articles seems really useful. As for "what Wikipedia is not", Bah. If its educational, improve it or leave it. Anthony717 (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Ooh, Ooh, I've got a perfect one. Mr. Hands. You can't rule that out on lack of notoriety, because it was all over the news and even resulted in a change in the law! deranged bulbasaur 01:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Viruses seem to be included in the lists even though there is some debate over whether they are living organisms. If they are to be included I believe there should be many more than the two currently in the list, from regularly watching House I think that the list might extend to thousands. How many of the "organisms" included in List of viruses have been fatal? Other questions, mosquitos are included but aren't they only a vector, should only the arasite be included? Should the snail that hosts the paraite before the mosquito picks it up be included? So basicly still delete even with the changes as it is a hard to define, unmaintainable list. [[Guest9999 (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)]]
• Comment the new name "deadly organisms" is much worse. For starters, all predators are deadly. Punkmorten (talk) 09:54, 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--Tone 14:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hellhound (Buffyverse)

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

Delete - fails WP:NOT#PLOT as nothing but a re-hash of the plot of the episode in which they appear. This one-off species has no independent notability. Also a chunk of original research with its assertion of similarity to other single-appearance species, implicates WP:V. Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 25 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--Tone 14:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As It Turns Out

As It Turns Out (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No claim to notability CultureDrone (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete as being extremely non-notable, with only one trivial mention in a source of questionable reliability known to exist. Author appears non-notable too, but he doesn't have an article. In fact, this is so non-notable that we may as well snowball close this now. It's a student play production.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. There must hundreds of plays at the same level of 'notability' as this - let's not go there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable article. Mh29255 (talk) 23:46, 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Of The Land (film)

Princess Of The Land (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Prod claims this doesn't meet WP:MOVIE and WP:CRYSTAL, and I highly agree. Creator's only contributions are this and some changes to a template to include it, plus some reverts. UsaSatsui (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there any source for the existence of this project. Animation is quite long to produce, longer than a classical film, 4 years or more, so it could already be in production. But a source is needed. Hektor (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If one turns up, I'll gladly withdraw, but I haven't been able to find one.--UsaSatsui (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Then Delete except if the creator of the article can provide a source. And if possible more than one. Hektor (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No citations, no sources. WP:NOT a fan site, etc. SpikeJones (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unable to turn up any sources with a search for the film title and pixar. IMDB has no entry for it. Completely fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reasons made by the nominator, and also WP:V.--Aldux (talk) 15:23, 30 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 three of them into Replay Publishing and make these three redirects. I will leave any further merge of content to the main article. It can always be found in the history.Bduke (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Season Pro Football

Second Season Pro Football (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game, speedy was declined. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Also nominating

Replay Basketball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Replay Publishing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Replay Baseball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- added by me (originally an A7 speedy by me, restored on request for hearing with related articles here) Xoloz (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. No evidence of notability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect baseball, football, and basketball to Replay Publishing, per slight improvements to article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• While I agree that the other Replay pages could probably be rolled into the main Replay Publishing page, I think that the Replay Publishing page qualifies as a notable subject. At least one game this company produces has been in the sports simulation community for over 30 years, and was only temporarily out of print due to rising costs associated with Major League Baseball licensing. The article includes references to prominent sites within the gaming community (boardgamegeek.com, tabletop-sports.com, and tabletopbaseball.org, which all give information and/or reviews of the product(s)/company in question. As such, it provides at least as much notable evidence as the APBA page, which does not even give sources for evidence of famous players that are listed as having played the game. I am the author of the Replay Publishing page. Kezzran (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No independent sources, no evidence or assertion of notability, slightly advertorial. Xoloz (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as lacking reliable independent sources unless these are found.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak keep but I'm not convinced that the third-party coverage is substantial enough.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 22:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• This being my first article, I'm having some trouble understanding where it falls short in notability, reliable sources, etc. I'd be most grateful if someone could enlighten me, in plain English. :) Specifically, I'm comparing this article to the APBA article, and am uncertain how mine falls short while that does not. I could probably point to other pages, but that is an easy one as it's part of the same genre as mine. Any information on how I could better prove notability and reliable sources (beyond the boardgame sites mentioned in the article) would be much appreciated. Again, identifying myself as the author of this article. Kezzran (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I can tell you where the article falls short when it comes to reliable sources: There are external links, but every single one of them is to a site owned by Replay Publishing. Although such links are useful to the casual reader, they must not be used alone: you must find non-trivial sources written by independent third parties such as magazines, newspapers, or anything not related directly to Replay Publishing. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 05:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the reply Blanchardb. I must disagree with you that every single external link is a reference back to the site owned by Replay Publishing. In fact, one of the two external links is owned by Replay, and in my references section I site three independent sources that review Replay and/or discuss its history. My understanding is that sources for material go into a references section, and that external links are simply provided for additional information. If rectifying the article so it will meet the standards of Wikipedia is as simple as adding some of the reference/citation links to the external links section, I'll gladly do that. I'd like to reference the APBA page again, which has 5 external links, 3 of which point back to the company itself. It would seem that this article would also qualify for deletion based on this criteria. I'll change things up on the page, and I'd like you to take a look at it again to see if the article is up-to-snuff. Again, thank you for your time, I hope I can bring this article up to standard so that it may be included alongside similar articles, such as APBA and Strat-O-Matic. Kezzran (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable article per WP:N and lack of sources per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Updated the page with link to a newspaper article as well as providing more information on the main article Replay Publishing rather than linked pages of each game they produce. Continuing to cite sources and provide links in an attempt to demonstrate notability and proper sourcing. Currently seeking information from the book Strat-O-Matic Fanatics: The Unlikely Success Story Of A Game That Became An American Passion by Glenn Guzzo, the seminal book concerning the sports simulation community, which I've been told gives mention to Replay Baseball. Once I have this, I will provide that data on the Replay Publishing page. The page now has a significant number of citations and links, in comparison to other articles of the genre (see APBA). Further comments on the page would be appreciated, especially if it is now up to par, which I believe it is.Kezzran (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Added citation of two books which discuss Replay Baseball, from Replay Publishing.Kezzran (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep one article only. I originally put speedy on Replay Publishing but the author has improved it since then. He has added references and, while work is still needed, there is proof of independent coverage of at least some of the games. The author is new to Wikipedia and he is struggling a bit to get it right but he is trying to do the right thing and I think that an acceptable article can be achieved. I recommend folding all the good content into one article, probably Replay Publishing. The others can be redirects. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The Replay Publishing article still looks like an ad, but at least its subject's notability is asserted and sourced. I will not withdraw my nomination of this one without consensus to do so (though I support a withdrawal), but I feel that, should it be kept, the other three articles nominated here should be merged to it. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep article Second Season Pro Football and merge other three nominated articles into it per comments by Blanchardb. Mh29255 (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments everyone. I do think it would be more logical to merge the other articles into Replay Publishing, being the umbrella company that publishes the three games. Thoughts? Kezzran (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Replay Publishing and redirect the others into it per above commentspossibly cleanup and add sources to it. Frank Anchor, U. S. American (talk, contribs) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Keep Replay Publishing and redirect the others into it Per notability and possible spam issues. MBisanz 10:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I like the thought process by previous commentators and now think that a Merge of all into Replay Publishing and then a good rewrite to remove the advertising style would work. --VS ^talk 22:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent, what is the process from here? Do I do the merge and redirect the other pages, or is this something an admin must do? Following this, I'll try to work on the re-write to make it more informative and less advertorial. Kezzran (talk) 22:54, 31 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 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin and Bean: We've Got Your Yule Logs Hangin'

Kevin and Bean: We've Got Your Yule Logs Hangin' (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album, but no speedy criterion available. A tell-all statement: Notes: Only 10,000 copies produced and distributed by Music Plus record stores. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources to indicate why its subject is important or significant. Tiddly-Tom 17:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Kevin and Bean Doc Strange (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak merge, of whatever relevant content, but I'd be inclined more just to delete as lacking relevance even to that article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:15, 25 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 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PHOLED

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

This article's contents have remained substantially unchanged since its creation by an anonymous editor in September 2005. The article is in substance only sourced by references to the website (which is offline) of the company owning the trademark on "PHOLED", Universal Display Corporation. Most or all internet coverage I'm immediately able to find on "PHOLED" seem to be press releases by this corporation. If no substantial coverage in reliable third party sources is uncovered in this AfD, this article should be deleted as non-notable and unverifiable. Sandstein (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but clean up spammy article that reads like a press release. NYT coverage and if you sift thru the PR on Google News Archive there's a bit more. --Dhartung | Talk 17:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. PHOLED is a unique lighting/display technology that is more than qualified for its own article on Wikipedia. Graham Wellington (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Graham is right, PHOLED deserves an article in Wikipedia. --Danh (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That may well be so, but an article requires substantial coverage by independent reliable sources, so as to satisfy our guideline WP:N and our policy WP:V. The NYT article cited by Dhartung is a good start, but be need a bit more. Sandstein (talk) 10:56, 30 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 Withdrawn with consensus to keep, no point in keeping a withdrawn nom open now is there? Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] York Steak House

York Steak House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability tag since March, unreferenced tag since March Sbowers3 (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Unsourced material can be deleted. Well, this whole article is unsourced and has been tagged for nine months, so the whole thing can be deleted. Without sources, notability cannot be verified. It has been tagged for notability for nine months. If someone thinks the subject is notable then provide some sources, and then remove the tags. Otherwise, the article should be deleted. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn now that it has been improved. Thanks to those who had the interest and energy to do it. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:V, WP:CORP per lack of sources. Sandstein (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep assuming that I can find additional sourcing, although not something that I intend to spend Christmas Day doing. From the internet is this appetizer [8]. This is one of those things that would be hard to believe now-- the somewhat tacky "medieval England" theme, placing a steak house in a mall, etc. -- but it was successful in a different era. These were a fairly prominent fixture in malls back in the 1970s, numbering in the hundreds. There was a time when families would go to a mall ("dressed up") for a nice dinner, and the "family restaurant" was as exclusive as an anchor store. In those communities where stores were closed on Sundays (blue laws were not uncommon prior to 1980), the steak house and the movie theater were among the few businesses open in the mall on a Sunday afternoon. The 70s also featured the trend toward the franchising of low-cost, cafeteria-style steak houses with "western" or, in this case, "old England" themes. The General Mills corporation made a foray into the restaurant business, and absorbed the losses as restaurants and malls changed. Google search is somewhat hampered by more ghits for "New York steak house" than for "York Steak House". Notable, however, on a variety of levels. And before anyone says, "go find the sources", I say, "Later. It's Christmas!" Mandsford (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but source. Part of a suite of restaurant concepts from General Mills, of which the two chief survivors are Olive Garden and Red Lobster. Since these went under in the 1980s sources will be limited. AFD is not cleanup. [9][10][11][12]

--Dhartung | Talk 17:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - As these cites provided by Dhartung show the article meets the standards of WP:Note. I tried to do this earlier this year and ran into the same issue of news stories. I managed to learn there is a location still open in Columbus, Ohio. So here are a couple of more cites for you:
  • Sam Reading (2003-12-26). York Steak House photo galley. Smugmug.com. Retrieved on 2007-11-14.
  • Travel guide listing for York Steak House in Columbus, Ohio. Mytravelguide.com. Retrieved on 2007-11-14.

The Smug Mug site is the work of a professional photographer/video producer thus it is a primary source, but I believe it meets the standards of WP:PSTS. This also appears to be a case of "I don't like it" by the nominator as when he prodded it, I removed the prod tag as the chain is notable.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

It's the lack of sources that I don't like - and it's been nine months since the unsourced and non-notable tags were put there (by someone else). Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia and without sources we don't have verifiability and we don't have notability. I'm going through old articles at Category:Articles lacking sources and Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability and prod'ing or afd'ing as many as I have patience for. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Dhartung and the fact that a national chain should be notable by default, right?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but improve - I found two good sources and added them to the list at the end of the article -- in less time than it typically takes me to nominate an article for deletion. However, I did not work on improving the actual article... --Orlady (talk) 22:19, 25 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 a1 empty, a7 no assertion of notability, g11 advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kick it touch football

Kick it touch football (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No prejudice against recreating this article once the sport becomes notable, but for the time being, this has no place on Wikipedia. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, and the article has improved during the process.--Kubigula (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Libertine

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

This is a non-notable, porno-movie stub. It doesn't appear to have made a lasting impact to, been at the top level of noteriety of, or was recognized as a critical part of its genre Mbisanz (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - First this is not porno, this is a soft core erotic film like Emmanuelle for instance ; second it made the headlines in France due to the fame (at the time) of Sophie Favier (a TV host) who played in it, unfortunately for her, just before becoming famous. Hektor (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:N, pending the addition of references to reliable sources to support the claim by Hektor above. Sandstein (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You put me in the classical situation linked to pre-Internet (1983... ) events. If I m lucky I will find a source, but this is of course not the most likely outcome, and I have no complete sets of Le Monde or Paris Match of the 80s in my attic. Here is a DVD review which has some elements (at the bottom) to support my claim (CAUTION : SOME NUDITY) and a small piece in French communist daily L'Humanité : here Hektor (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I would vote keep but the articles author just basically admitted to violating WP:OR. Ridernyc (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not exactly, I wrote it from memory which was OR, but it happens that my memory is not too bad after all and after checking I have found sources which corroborate what I wrote and I have updated the text accordingly. So it was OR, and now it is sourced. Please judge the article on its current status. Hektor (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; seems notable enough, and the cites exist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: The film seems to be reasonably notable and the article is cited. Also, I see no reason to disbelieve Hektor that the film was reviewed in Le Monde as Sophie Favier did have a long television career in France according to the French wiki. Hopefully, Lady Libertine can be expanded and a source can be found. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:21, 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 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dtn (printer designation)

Dtn (printer designation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. This information (and related information on other printer designations) should be added as a section in Computer printer, not created as an orphan page. Mayalld (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no info and no sources. Def only Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge as a sentence or two into Computer printer. Not notable on its own. Also note that only the first two refs really relate to the acronym; the second two are just general sites for the two printer companies mentioned, Lexmark and HP. Tim Ross·^talk 00:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge, trivial, WP:NOT#IINFO. Sandstein (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak merge per Tim Ross, but preferably just delete as obscure jargon dicdef.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:21, 25 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 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QuantLib

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

Notability for this open source financial package has not been established. Ronnotel (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: the article basically says: "we are here" and not much more. While the project may be popular (the activity on SourceForge suggests so) the current text brings almost no information to Wikipedia readers. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:V, WP:N per lack of third-party sources. Sandstein (talk) 15:36, 25 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 01:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamia Salfia (India)

Jamia Salfia (India) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about nn school or mosque. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:V, WP:N per lack of third-party sources. Sandstein (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Sandstein. Unsourced stubs are worth little, anyway.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 12:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content strategy

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

Article does not assert notability. It calls it an emergent field, so it may be a crystal ball issue, too. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for now 18 million ghits, but the few I looked at were all advertising or wern't related to the article itself. This might be a valid field, but it shouldn't be here until notibility can be asserted through indpendent reliable sources. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Mr. Senseless, and hopefully if it's recreated there'll be no weasels to be seen, because this article is full of their words, despite being quite short.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'm editing the original entry to add citations supporting its notability. Bare with this newbie!--Jeffmacintyre (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A very fine example of marketese, many words saying little. There are two references to Jacob Nielsen but the mentioned articles do not define the term and do not claim there's a novel way to create and organize content. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• I've tried to be more concrete in defining the practice up front. It is a very real and existing, albeit emerging, field of practice. I've also drawn an extensive reference from a job description for a 'content strategist' that outlines various responsibilties for the role. This should help inform my point that content strategy need be differentiated from copywriting per se. See copywriting's entry to get a hint of that distinction, too. I hope this is helpful.--Jeffmacintyre (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for now, too much of a how-to article. MBisanz 10:15, 31 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 The Warriors (film) and redirect. I will leave further merge of content to others. It is available from the history. Some content is already there. Bduke (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Turnbull AC's (gang)

The Turnbull AC's (gang) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A fictional gang from a movie and video game. There are no independent reliable sources, or any other indication of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment See the edit history of User:WölffReik to see several similar articles recently created by that account. If the Turnbull AC's article gets deleted, then the other articles about fictional gangs from the Warriors film and video game should be deleted too, because they have the same issues. Spylab (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to gang nominate the lot of them if this AfD results in a clear consensus for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with the relevant articles and redirect the page. --Neon white (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge in part to The Warriors (film). Sandstein (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Not notable on own. MBisanz 10:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely a merge into The Warriors due to NN reasons. --VS ^talk 22:37, 31 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, withdrawn by nominator. CitiCat ^♫ 13:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone

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

Also nominating: Riz Story (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• This band and its leader, Riz Story, struggle to meet WP:MUSIC. Only one album on a notable label (Roadrunner Records), and no songs that reached any national singles charts. The band appear to have been semi-inactive since then. I tried looking for sources and found a few, but not many. Kerrang magazine noticed them briefly around 2001. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete only had one album released on a notable label, so therefore fails WP:MUSIC. Lugnuts (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't want this page to be deleted particularly, but what I am sure of is that this band's notability or non-notability is definitely borderline (it's certainly not an A7) and worth having an AfD for.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also I forgot to add that they may meet WP:MUSIC criterion 8 or 9 in that they were named best new band by Kerrang! magazine, which is not a major award but they did win one of the larger minor awards...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, I feel that this band and its leader should be notable. But I really do have my doubts at the same time.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No substantial third party coverage of this band is cited. Sandstein (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Is an interview in Kerrang! magazine a reliable source? I used to have the exact magazine where this interview came from.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Found another non-trivial source.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Riz Story also directed a pornographic film and I am effectively certain (ha, oxymoron) that it is the same person as the guy in this band.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• I seriously consider anyone voting delete take a look at those sources. I don't want to lose this article, but I nominated it for deletion as a test of notability. Clearly there are multiple, non-trivial reliable published sources about this band.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Nom withdrawn due to my finding of many more third-party sources. When closing this AfD you may wish to consider that although not much third-party coverage is cited yet in the actual article, since the AfD began I have found enough sources for this to pass WP:N. I may merge Riz Story to Anyone and redirect, though.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:09, 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 Redirect to Wisin & Yandel. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El Duo Dinámico

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

The album that this stub refers to was renamed, and has its own page: Wisin vs. Yandel: Los Extraterrestres. El monty (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Wisin vs. Yandel: Los Extraterrestres. This would not have needed an AfD. Sandstein (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maithreyi Seetharaman

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

I can't find reliable indedependent sources on this person. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral, leaning towards weak delete. There's this, this mention of something she wrote... but a lack of real third-party material.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I am not in favor of deletion. I have added two external links. One shows Maithreyi's biography from the Globalist. She is a real journalist on Bloomberg TV (from USA). She regularly reports live from the NYSE floor. She has also sat in the anchor position on Bloomberg. Sorry for the lack of development on the article. Emmadi (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• The external link to Maithreyi's biography on the Globalist was deleated. Here is the link that verifys that she is a journalist (author) http://www.theglobalist.com/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=864 - Emmadi (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete Even assuming assertions are true, I'm still not seeing a notable merida personality. MBisanz 10:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• she also reports for Bloomberg from the Nasdaq. She was also an anchor for CNBC in India. She did their evening shows..there are pictures of her in www.tvheads.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemoadi (talk • contribs)
• Delete - there is enough about her on the Web to confirm the facts in the article. However, nothing really hangs together that she is notable enough to meet WP:BIO; for example there are no significant profiles in WP:RSs. TerriersFan (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not enough evidence of notability to be including in WP.--VS ^talk 22:31, 31 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. Davewild (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-flite P-47D Thunderbolt 400

E-flite P-47D Thunderbolt 400 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable advertising like article AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment At minimum it needs a strong clean-up. It does read like a catalog page. Probably a delete unless someone has a good reason to keep it.--159.221.32.10 (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry the above was my comment. Wasn't logged in.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no not trivial external sources. Lobojo (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MBisanz 10:19, 31 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 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shams Beer

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

Notability not asserted. I could find no secure information that the brand was ever made in America - though it may have been imported at some point.. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 12:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced about the existence or notability of this beer prior to the Iranian revolution. The only source provided talks about a copycat currently being produced in the US. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Asserts no notability whatsoever. Only source is a link to a letters to the editor page which in turn links to a page of drinks people have emailed in that they remember from before the revolution and does not give significant coverage to Shams other than a name on the list. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Pain Pro Wrestling

Pro-Pain Pro Wrestling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG. Tagged for numerous problems 2 months ago and no response. Plenty of statements that have no sources and could well fail WP:OR !! Justa Punk !! 12:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a Google search seems to show likely notability, though the lack of news coverage is worrisome. Needs WP:RS. JJL (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, for now anyway. Nikki311 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable pro wrestling company. Kris (talk) 02:26, 29 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. Davewild (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crawford's Corner

Crawford's Corner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

User:Kelvinc is also nominating the following related pages because it was created by the same user for a subject related to the original nomination and also fails WP:V:

Crawford the Cat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ran into this article while searching on green cats (these are cats that acquired a green coat due to drinking water with a high concentration of copper, in case you're wondering). Anyways searching for Crawford's corner Perennial Pictures Film Corporation gave 177 hits, not all of them states the show in question. Searching for Crawford's Corner alone yields a lot of unrelated hits. However, that google search did turn up pages on imdb and youtube that is directly linked to the show. Judging from various other media-related Afd's, having articles on those sites do not assert enough notability. The article only have the studio's site, the show's site and a blog. ---Lenticel ^(talk) 08:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: WikiProject American Animation has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'm thinking this might violate a a speedy, the one on advertising. Hiding T 16:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also nominating Crawford the Cat, made by same user. Kelvinc (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak delete per nom. Has been broadcast, but appears to lack third-party sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to lack that lasting impact or widespread knowledge. MBisanz 10:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, but added refimprove template to article. Davewild (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Cervenka

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

Notability problems; while I can find some references to John Cervenka in searches, they are only ever passing mentions in articles about MXC or a few one-episode parts he's played in sitcoms. Though he did seem to host Love Connection and Burt Luddin's Buffet, I can't find anything else about it. PirateMink 08:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The subject really does not have any presence on the searches that I ran. As noted above, passing mention at best for this comedian/actor. --Stormbay (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article doesn't mention it (yet), but Cervenka and other MXC people are alumni of the Groundlings. Borderline notability but my vote is, let's keep it to be conservative. --Lockley (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, seems to have scattered claims of notability but I think he might pass WP:N -- one major role as announcer, one as game show host, and a handful of bit parts, plus a background as one of the Groundlings. Could stand to be sourced though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I have a feeling that this article is not sourced in any meaningful way because no one is finding material. It can be kept and left inadequately sourced, if that is the consensus. Stormbay (talk) 22:38, 29 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 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warm Blankets Orphan Care International

Warm Blankets Orphan Care International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Was CSD'd, notability is uncertain. Keilana 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really know if this is a necessary article. I know there has been some discussion lately about orphans/foreign adoptions (how it has become sort of an industry in which women are paid to have babies that are in turn sold to naive Americans). Many people think that foreign orphan adoptions help, but 99+% of orphans left behind with no one to care for them. That's where this organization steps in. I could eventually add more info about human trafficking or foreign adoption if it would help it to be a worth while article. Or, just delete it, and I could maybe write an article just on foreign adoptions down the road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBethany (talk • contribs) — MissBethany (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Tentative delete. The only references provided either originate from the subject organization, or simply prove that it exists. If verifiable third-party citations can be provided showing that this organization has achieved notability, I'd willingly switch to "keep." --Russ (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Since no one has claimed any notability. --BozMo talk 22:38, 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 Keep. This certainly needs much work, but the copyright violation is not demonstrated and we do not delete for lack of sources. We add sources. Bduke (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etruscan coins

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

This appears to be an original research piece on Etruscan coinage, or a copy vio. I'll note the manuscript style inline citations, and the fact it was uploaded at one entire piece of prose by the creator. Also, the first version, prior to some wikifying, had the author at the end listed as "Italo Vecchi" Therefore, I submit this is either the original research of "Italo Vecchi" or its a copy vio of some existing piece. Mbisanz (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated This appears to be from the forethcoming work "Coinage of Etruria and Umbria. Parte 1.The coinage of the Rasna: the gold, silver, and bronze coinages from the mints of Cosa, Luca (?),Pisae (?),Populonia,"Velsnani",Vetulonia,Vulci and Uncertain Mints from V century to III century BC" by Italo Vecchi here http://www.edizioniennerre.it/ENcatcerca.php . I used his name and followed it to this website which he references in the submitted article. Granted if its unpublished, we can't be sure its a copyright, but I do think its still inappropriate for inclusion on the basis of copy right issues and/or original research (none of the many parenthetical citations are completed). Mbisanz (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well, this brings some more (but not much :-/ ) clarity to the whole affair. I checked the contributions of the main author of the article as well, and it does appear to be an exerpt of his own book, and thus though not necessarily a copyvio, since he retains copyright to his own text; the problem remains of it being awfully close to spamming his own book, and kind of problematic for that reason. I suppose the test of the pudding would be on what the reaction to wikification and editing of the article would be... <deep gulp> -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well pulling this random line out of "The Etruscans were not frightened to experiment, as is illustrated by the case of an extraordinary struck bronze series with incuse reverses, presumably from Populonia and based on a hundred units (or centesimal system) which may correspond to the struck Roman sexantal as, theoretically of about 54 grams." the amount of original, unsourced research in that one statement makes that statement almost unsalvagable to me. I mean in theory we could wikify all this citations, but they'd still be his interpretation of them, which would be OR to me. Not seeing how this is saveable, other than to stubbify it. Mbisanz (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I was invited to this AfD as editor of the article, but my only contribution was the removal of a speedy tag for copyvio of an unspecified URL, which I couldn't find myself. If the article is to be deleted as copyvio, its source needs to be found. The mere presence of a signature is by no means an indication of a copyvio. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't citations mean it is not original research? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  That should be judged case by case. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, let me rephrase that. Aren't citations evidence against a presumptive judgement of original research? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: the text, as it is now, is very likely copied from somewhere and unencyclopedical in style. I wonder whether it would of any use for anyone trying work on the article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• (Deleted by Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

  I suspect when you say unsourced, you mean to say unattributed. Those are two entirely different things. Not that Unattributed is better. Just tell us what text tehy are plagirizing, and we will all be much more satisfied. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Articles should not be deleted for copyright violation based on suspicion and belief. If anything more substantial than the present innuendo is produced this vote is of course inapplicable, but I can only make a judgment on what has actually been presented. From what I can actually observe, this seems to be acceptable and even valuable material that simply needs wikification. deranged bulbasaur 16:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• (Deleted by Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

  I think the point you may be missing here is, if we knew what it was supposed to be a word for word copy of, we could check if it really was such and it could just be zapped... needs to be specified a copy of which text though, before taht. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  You're making unverified allegations of illegal activity against a living person. This isn't mainspace, but what you're doing cuts pretty close to libel. I still don't see any actual evidence. You may well be right, but your matter of fact accusations in absence of proof are so highly inappropriate that I considered deleting your post. deranged bulbasaur 22:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  Point taken. I've gone ahead and deleted the posts myself, particularly in light of Mbisanz's research. By definition, one can't plagiarize himself; if the author of the article took someone else's work, word-for-word, that would be a different matter, of course. If this is drawn from something that is copyrighted, however, the copyright still lies with the publisher. I agree with you, however, that we have to be careful when we voice our opinions that something is a copyvio or a hoax. Without an explanation of what the sources are, I still say delete. Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete in light of elaborated circumstances. For most journals, the transfer of copyright is contingent on the actual publication of the material and would not occur before then. So, if this is submitted to wikipedia first, it is licensed under the GFDL by the author. He can then transfer the copyright, but the new copyright holder would still have to honor the license because it cannot be terminated. However, this situation is iffy enough that it would be best to err on the side of caution and delete. deranged bulbasaur 20:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and avoid copyright paranoia. We delete copyvio when we know what is being copied. The website give the title of an article, which may or may not have been published--it says forthcoming, but the date given is "04". If this is is from an extensive article, of the sort scholars write, and the sort which by itself would make up what appears to be the entire annual issue of a journal, this will just be the introduction and it would be fair use, meeting all 4 tests. We have no idea of the licensing of this material; journal practices vary very widely. The author may have kept the copyright and given the publisher merely a license to publish it. Arrangements vary. I see no attempt on the talk page to ask him aside from our conventional notice. DGG (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was a fairuse intro from a book, wouldn't that still be Original Research or at least be something that should go to wikisource? MBisanz 05:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless the article is stubbified by an editor (and anyone can do this as they please under the guidelines) removes all material that is unverified and/or uncited.--VS ^talk 22:43, 31 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 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vosque

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

non notable website Choosing123 (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - vanity posting. Totally non-notable. Forums have 2 members and 9 posts. Also article created by user with same user name as owner of site. Speedy as advertising spam. Ben W Bell talk 03:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I don't see non-trivial independent and reliable secondary sources to back this page up alive in Wikipedia per WP:WEB. Dekisugi (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that it is notable. Davewild (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appjet

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

non-notable website Choosing123 (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Arguing for notability: AppJet has been written up by major tech blogs (the external links section of the article was obscured by a mark-up error). They are a funded company and have a user community. Compare to other web sites that have achieved similar status like Anywhere.FM, Weebly, Parakey, and YouOS. -- DavidLG (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There may be some confusion because AppJet refers to a company, a web site, and a software developer tool. I don't know about the company or web site, but I would argue for notability for the developer tool because it is a complete web application framework. It seems that all the frameworks listed on Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks have pages, some of which are more obscure than AppJet. -- Aaroniba (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It is notable, it has been featured on major tech blogs (see external links) and the article has good sources. Urdna (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:36, 30 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 Speedied as G11. BLACKKITE 00:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gamerz Liberation

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

non-notable website Choosing123 (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - Not notable, definite CoI: Author is Gamerz Liberation. This is just an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a billboard.
  Equazcion •✗/C • 13:11, 12/25/2007
• Comment Tagged this for speedy, left AfD notice too, hope that's okay. This is blatant advertising and doesn't need to go through AfD. CSD has since been removed, however...
  Equazcion •✗/C • 13:22, 12/25/2007
• Delete. Blatant, unequivocal spam. WWGB (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G11 as soon as possible.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:50, 25 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 as short article lacking the context that would allow us to identify the subject. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vanderbilt, the Netherlands

Vanderbilt, the Netherlands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Again this is not notable and try to see it this time Knorkington's (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been relisted in accordance with a DRV decision. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:42, 12/25/2007

• Keep - This was just Snowball Kept 3 days ago because "Real and recognised settlements are automatically considered notable". Respect the decision and move on. Someone should remove this nomination.
• Neutral - No more opinion one way or the other. Apologies to Knorkington's for the false assumption.
  Equazcion •✗/C • 12:46, 12/25/2007
• Keep It's clearly, and quite rightly, established that even villages this small are inherently notable and for this to be renominated after a snowball keep three days ago borders on disruption. The nominator doesn't even bother to provide a rationale Nick mallory (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If I was wrong about this one, my sincere apologies to the nominator. I based my opinion on the supposition that places are notable and it had recently been snowball kept. If it turns out that it isn't a real place after all then of course it should be deleted and I'm entirely at fault as I should have researched this better, like I often tell other people to do! Nick mallory (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Why has this been relisted? Nominators only contributions are related to trying to get this article deleted, which seems strange.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Answering my own question. There was a deletion review debate here seems that the original debate was speedy closed. If the place has sources proving it is real then I still say keep, otherwise delete, and please let the debate run the full course. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I added that info to the nom.
      Equazcion •✗/C • 13:44, 12/25/2007
• Delete - completely agree that hamlets / villages / small towns etc are deemed notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, however this appears to be a hoax. Addhoc (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - either a hoax, or so small that it's not recognised by anything, not even it's own municipality. I am tempted to play a WP:IDONTKNOWIT, which is an argument to avoid, but I've been to Texel quite a few times, it's not that big, and I don't know it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless a reliable source is found to verify its existence in which case I would change to support its keeping. Had a quick look myself but cannot find anything. Davewild (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the reason for listing this for deletion, as non-notable, is beside the point. We have US towns with much fewer inhabitants than 54. The Dutch wikipedia does not know of the existence of this place however. Only thing that needs be decided is does the darned place exist at all. Any and all keep and delete votes are irrelevant until the existence is either proven or refuted. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, if it exists we keep, if it doesn't we delete. I can't find it in google maps, while I can find the hamlets listed in the Texel template. Addhoc (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Still not voting (<smirk>) but the decision to go the long route here was precisely right. If real, retaining the article is entirely right, and every opportunity should be extended to give the chance to supply that, but if that isn't forthcoming, well, then no tears need be spilt. A chance to prove reality of the community is more than enough, and for that matter, if Vanderbilt turns out to be a hotel, hostel or backpackers crash space, well... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a hoax Will ^(talk) 14:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Noone has yet been able to verify its existence. At the very least, it should therefore be deleted per WP:V. The article is presumably a hoax. Aecis·(away) ^talk 15:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per others, with advice to the nom: wait until the ruddy DRV is over next time. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I have no objection to keeping hamlets, but they must pass WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 17:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -WP:V has to be met by any article. This is the third discussion and still no-one has come forward with any evidence that this is a named place. BlueValour (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax.  --Lambiam 21:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V and is likely a hoax. --Coredesat 22:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A hoax! A hoax! My kingdom for a hoax! --Sorry that just sorta came to me. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:49, 12/25/2007
• Delete. Appears to be a hoax, unless anyone can prove otherwise.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Seems to be a hoax. I scanned the entire island in Google Maps, which it has in great detail, and could find no such place. Didn't find a bus stop for it either (which are shown on Google Maps.) There is a rather interestingly blocked out area on the southern coast of the island, but I doubt it is under that masking blanket. Ben W Bell talk 03:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax or settlement which does not exist in the usual sense. I have also scanned Google Maps, as well as scanning a Google search, plus maps by MSN, MapQuest and MuktiMap. I'm not seeing anything. Do not delete as a non notable settlement, as there is no such thing. J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 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 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of historical figures in Civilization IV

List of historical figures in Civilization IV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was deleted in the prod process, the reason was that the content - list of characters - is not encyclopedic. However, several users later expressed an opinion that the list is in fact useful and should be restored. So I am putting it here to generate a broader consensus. Thank you for attention. Tone 11:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Might be useful (to a select group), but like many useful lists, it still isn't notable. Usefulness was never a criterion for inclusion. We're not an almanac. Also entirely OR.
  Equazcion •✗/C • 11:59, 12/25/2007
• Delete The information can be added to the article on the game, there's far too much computer game stuff here already. Nick mallory (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Anything on here could be said to only be useful to a select group, "notability" is up for debate, and "far too much computer game stuff here already" is baseless, opinion, and just silly. There are many, many lists of characters from books, movies, tv series, and games already; this one is notable in that they are all historical figures, and having them in one comprehensive list is a great tool for finding more information on the individuals. --Managerpants (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • TV show character listings can be notable if there are secondary sources that list them. This list is not notable because no secondary sources have seen fit to publish it. Also, this is different from a listing of major characters in a game or fictional work. This is basically a list of minor mentions. The game is notable; the historical figures mentioned in it are not (at least not in the context of the game). The incidental usefulness of such a list is irrelevant. Notability is just not there. Merge is a possibility. PS I changed your vote to "Keep" instead of "Don't Delete" cause that was kinda confusing to look at. I hope you don't mind but if you feel strongly about it feel free to change it back.
    Equazcion •✗/C • 13:57, 12/25/2007
    • Nope, I don't mind. You're right; it was confusing. I would be open to a merge, because I do understand where you're coming from. I wouldn't call it "gamecruft" or say that it is not notable, however. Just with a very quick Google search, I found at least one secondary source that lists them: Answers.com. --Managerpants (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Answers.com mirrors many other sites, including Wikipedia, so if you see something there that we've got, chances are it came from us. In fact at the bottom of the page you linked to, there's a notice, "This entry is from Wikipedia". It's actually a direct mirror of this very article, so that obviously wouldn't be a valid secondary source. Sorry :) Equazcion •✗/C • 11:45, 12/26/2007
        • Haha, that'll teach me to not read all the way to the bottom! --Managerpants (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Hehe. Don't worry, I've made the same mistake before. I think most editors who've tried searching for sources have :) Equazcion •✗/C • 13:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hate using this term but this nothing more then gamecruft. Ridernyc (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per notability, gamecruft, etc. --Rajah (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (article creator) I see this page as being just as encyclopedic as ABBA discography. It's a list of notable things, not really an article per se. The list was originally abbreviated and contained in the Civilization IV article... but as wikipedians completed the list it became too large (see here)... and we spliced it off in a sub-article (much like ABBA discography would have been spliced off into a sub-article).

The list is not a game guide... what you learn here won't help one bit in playing Civ 4. It was compiled because the game introduces many historical characters that players may not be familiar with. Abu Bakr might pop up as one of your country's prophets and you left are scratching your head as to who this guy actually was. Players who stumble upon this wikipedia list spend hours looking up all the figures they hadn't heard of... and consequently learn quite a bit... which is what an encyclopedia is for.

For any who are in favor of delete, if we do delete, then should we reintroduce this list into the original article? David Bergan (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That has some merit, but really not for Wikipedia. A non-notable article just doesn't belong, even if it is incidentally a useful list. And I wouldn't re-introduce it into the game article either. It's too big and sorry to say it is "cruft". The list does have merit for the purposes you suggest, just not on Wikipedia. I think you should post it somewhere else, like a game fansite. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I somewhat take that back. I don't really think it does any harm to leave the list in, if it really is that useful to people (and I can see how it would be). I would be fine with keeping the article, but I know there are those who respect policy as the gospel of some horrible bitch-goddess, so you might be out of luck. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:NOT#INFO and WP:GAMECRUFT. At best, this deserves two or three sentences in the main article that the leaders of the different factions and some units are in fact historical figures. It does not deserve an article concerning a list of figures, many of whom are only present in the game as a sprite on the map, which incidentally is the same for all other leaders that share the same unit type. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:44, 30 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 to keep the article. Spebi 06:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl Slaghoople

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

Non-notable minor character from the TV show The Flintstones (apparently Wilma's mother). Doesn't have the potential to grow beyond a stub, entirely OR, and only two article links. A CSD request (18 Nov) was removed.

• Weak Keep Oddly enough, she was not notable at all in the cartoon series, and did not rise to vitamin status -- but she has been prominent enough a character in the live action films to have been portrayed by both Elizabeth Taylor (in a rare film appearance) and by Joan Collins (ditto), each of whom gave their own "interpretation" of Fred's mother-in-law. Why Liz and Joan came out of retirement for a Flintstones film is one of life's little mysteries. Mandsford (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Mandsford or merge to a list of [minor] characters from the series.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm still not seeing the notability. Are we saying that if a prominent actor takes the role of a character, that character is automatically notable? That's the only line of reasoning I'm seeing here and I don't agree with it. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:06, 12/25/2007
• People will certainly disagree, and I've called it a weak keep, although I see the potential. The circumstances of this particular role are unusual, as explained. The Flintstones are well-known. Liz Taylor and Joan Collins are well-known. "Fred's mother-in-law" (I didn't know her "real" name) certainly was not a minor character in the film. Hence, this is more memorable than Lucille Ball's character in Stone Pillow, or James Cagney as "Terrible Joe Moran", or Bette Davis in "A Piano For Mrs. Cimino". Certainly, I wouldn't merge this to Liz Taylor's article (yikes). It's a judgment call, and other people will weigh in on this. Mandsford (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:48, 30 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 01:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Wood (presenter)

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

Article on a minor radio DJ, probable COI. Websearch brings up nothing to verify info or establish notability. shoeofdeath (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unestablished notability and unsourced. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 11:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete does not establish notability and lacks sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete – original research; fails to cite reliable, independent, verifiable secondary sources; completely in-universe style; prior AFD issues have not been remedied. --slakr^\ talk / 20:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ships of Homeworld

Ships of Homeworld (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Third round for this one. Lets see, no sources at all. no real world context at all and I doubt there are reliable sources to add any real world context. Original research problems some of them pretty bad if you read the article. The article was created roughly 2 and half years ago, has been nominated for deletion twice and still has not been improved. I think that makes a pretty clear case that this article will never pass WP:NOT#PLOT, and WP:RS Ridernyc (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I have amended the above link to point to the correct place. WP:Plot is under discussion. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 13:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Most of this seems to be original research. I suspect at least some of this information could be traced to some game guides or something, but not really for anything independent of the game itself. A decent summary of this would be more appropriate for the Homeworld article, which isn't even that big at the moment. Wickethewok (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I deleted the info from Homeworld as per WP:GAMEGUIDE. SharkD (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Gameguide material, cruft, no sources, no reliable secondary sources covering the topic, no real-world significance. SharkD (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Needs to establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:PLOT redirects to an style page for articles on films, and has nothing to do with the present article. SharkD shows the method some editors seem to adopt in handling this sort of material--delete it from the main article, then delete the separate one. There is no consensus at WP that this material is invalid content, we merely have to decide where to put it. DGG (talk) 20:07, 29 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 original research concerns, without reliable secondary sources showing that a comparison between these two particular budgets is notable this article must be a synthesis and fall foul of original reasearch. Davewild (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 to 2007 Federal Budget Comparison

2000 to 2007 Federal Budget Comparison (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This well meaning entry is original research in that it attempts to take two discrete sets of facts and synthesize a comparison. It also appears to push a point of view, in that it is comparing the budgets before and after the US' declaration of the Iraq war. I don't see this article as salvagable, other than maybe Wikisource or unless there is some critical debate on these 2 years' budgets that I am unaware of Mbisanz (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't really encyclopedic material; however if these two particular years are notable/important in any way then the comparison should be merged as a section of the article United States federal budget, 2007 (which is also low on refs and begs for a general cleanup of sorts). Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 11:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the material is an original synthesis, and doesn't add anything that wouldn't be in an article on Federal bubdget over time. If such an article was notable so would approximatly 230 times 230 divided by 2 other articles comparing 1793 with 1924 and so on and on. That would be about 25,000 articles- which would help to push up the article count I suppose. Lobojo (talk) 13:37, 25 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 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rochester wireless hotspots

Rochester wireless hotspots (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by author. No matter how the article is edited, I still don't believe that the wireless hotspots of Rochester, New York can be turned into an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia article - as far as I can tell, it's currently serving as an excuse to insert the two external links. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide nor directory. Sticky Light (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: Per nom--Hu12 (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball delete Lobojo (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Definitely not worth an article, surely can find space for a small mention in the Rochester, New York article. alex.muller (talk) 00:03, 29 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 Homosexuality in Singapore, text has already been moved there. Davewild (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gay backlash

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

This is a news article. Followed by a ton of WP:OR. It could possibly be transwikied, but it doesn't belong here. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A vehement series of letters to the editor does not a notable scandal make. --Dhartung | Talk 07:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Homosexuality in Singapore and/or LGBT rights in Singapore. Not sufficient for a separate article but definitely merits a mention in one or both of those articles. Otto4711 (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to those articles per Otto.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I've done a copy and paste merge into Homosexuality in Singapore. Addhoc (talk) 13:32, 30 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 01:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hiigara

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

in-universe article about non-notable planet from the homeworld games. Ridernyc (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete' Lobojo (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic, unreferenced and un(non)notable. •97198 talk 10:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 16:55, 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 Keep ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vanatühi

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

procedural nomination—article version at start of AFD: This has been a stub without citations to support verifiability since its creation in May 2005 and has been tagged as unreferenced since mid-2007. This was found nominated for PROD-deletion; PROD nominator stated "no sources to show this god meets the notability requirements of WP:N". However, I feel this topic is notable but, apparently, unverifiable. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Estonia was notified of the nomination and asked for input. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral for now, but there may be sources in Estonian, which would be acceptable, but since I can't read those, I have no way of judging that this is not a hoax. Part of a national mythology should be notable. "List of minor characters in Estonian mythology"? I'm joking about that of course, since this isn't a contemporary mass media thing.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and add references from et:Vanapagan, (supposing that is the correct article name should also be pagemoved to Vanapagan, as Vanatühi doesn't appear to be "most common name" for this spirit). It should be noted that the Estonian language article has 7-8 book sources that appear to be fine. An Estonian may of course dispute that, if they know better. I can just get a glimmering of what the Estonian text means, not enough to be confident. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:01, 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 Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure.. ViperSnake151 19:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Secret World of Santa Claus

The Secret World of Santa Claus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The only reference or external link is "404 Not Found".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, although the article could be improved. This is a real television program being shown on Teletoon, with a 13-hour marathon being broadcast today (Christmas). See [21] and [22]. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).{{sofixit}}   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Please don't template the regulars. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      • You're right, sorry! Please go ahead and provide (or at least specify) any such improvements. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (and thanks!) One of the positive things about the nominations is that they bring attention to things, both good and bad, that would otherwise go overlooked in the haystack of Wikipedia. I had never heard of this cartoon, although it's apparently popular in Europe (in Germany, it's called "Weihnachtsmann und Co. k.g.", and episodes have been uploaded to youtube.com). So, before anyone says an unfavorable word, thanks Jeff -- I had never heard of this before today, and I'm glad to know about it now. Mandsford (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. How incidental that you nominate this on Christmas Day onto Wikipedia's naughty list. This is a notable cartoon series, and just so happens to be a part of Teletoon's traditional holiday lineup. But, the whole "only reference is dead" thing, I can explain. Ever since their big rebrand from earlier this year, Teletoon's website has been overhauled alot. ViperSnake151 17:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is especially important on Christmas Day for Wikipedia articles related to Christmas to be well-referenced and about notable subjects, not only because of the topicality, but because so many kids are getting newer/better/faster computers and internet connections today, and so more/better/faster access to Wikipedia. I think we now have enough information on references and notability for this article, so I Withdraw my listing of it here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:24, 25 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 06:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Make Madea Take Off Her Earrings

Don't Make Madea Take Off Her Earrings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod removed, so here we go. No sources, and Google's got nothing...doesn't meet WP:CRYSTAL, among other things. Shawis (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article claims that the play was written by Cameron Tate, when in fact Tyler Perry is the creator of Madea and the writer of all the plays about her. Consequently, this article is unlikely to be accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Brianga (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:HOAX. I'm not a big fan of people using Google to claim non-notability, but when there is no Google hits whatsoever then that it itself makes me suspicious as a hoax. Also it proclaims that Tyler Perry is also known as "Cameron Tate". I have nothing on this. So this is probably a hoax Doc Strange (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a second! The article was Created by a user named Cameron Tate according to the revision history. This user continuously makes articles proclaiming himself to be the creator of the Madea character and not Tyler Perry. so this basically fan fiction AND a hoax. Insane Doc Strange (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete as failing WP:V enough to be a snowball close.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete I'm pretty sure that this is made up. I would think Tyler Perry would be the only person to play Madea. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 05:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt, given the author's fondness for recreation of deleted articles. Given the information uncovered above, the lack of notability and verifiability are clear. Xymmax (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Three times the AfD notice has been removed from this article. Once by Cameron Tate [23], and twice by IP users who we may assume are also Cameron Tate [24] [25] . Something should be done. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• ... and a fourth time [26] - they don't learn. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete - Cameron Tate has a history of creating hoaxes; perhaps a block is in order? There's no place for stuff you made up whilst bored one day in Wikipedia. NF24^{(happy holidays!)} 01:21, 28 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, disagreement over his notability, suggest sources quoted in this debate are added to the article. Davewild (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tomáš Pekhart

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

procedural nomination—article version at time of AFD: This was deleted in 2006 via AFD. It is not eligible for deletion under WP:CSD#G4 as content has changed somewhat. PROD nominator states "No evidence that the player meets notability criteria for sportspeople as laid down at WP:BIO". Personally, I think Pekhart might barely pass the notability threshold now but could not in 2006, but it would not have been appropriate for me to decline the PROD given a prior AFD (under present policy). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep He played for SK Slavia Praha, a fully professional team. Currently signed to one of the biggest teams in the most popular league in the world (albeit as a reserve). Still, his time at SK Slavia Praha ensures that he easily passes out notability guidelines for athletes. faithless (^speak) 08:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - If he played any games for Slavia Praha, the article should say so. At the minute, the article provides no evidence that the player meets the notability threshold, and should be deleted. – PeeJay 10:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, there's hardly an article there once you remove the peacock phrases and he hasn't yet made any notable appearances at a level which really establishes notability. If he's up-and-coming (which his age indicates) then there's no reason the article can't be reinstated should he find himself playing first-team football at a notable club, but that isn't guaranteed. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: there's not much about him in Czech written media and online, just few fan pages (based on this one from city he was born) and short notices where he scored or so. I guess this is plus for him.

If kept, the article should mention in the first sentence he is football player - "Totenham Hotspur" is not self-explaining. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per general guideline at WP:N (i.e. the player has significant coverage in independent sources) and per WP:BIO, irrespective of the fact that he played for Slavia Reserves[27] and therefore he fails WP:BIO (never competed in a fully professional league). There is an article dedicated to him on FIFA.com, more that enough for football player to claim the notability (Pekhart, the gentle giant). Other non-trivial mentions include BBC Sport and UEFA.com.   Jhony  |  Talk   16:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• I hardly understand Czech, but "Pekhart věří, že dostane v Tottenhamu šanci" looks like another article dedicated to him personally.   Jhony  |  Talk   02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• More:
  Pekhart se začíná v Tottenhamu prosazovat
  Slavia výhodně prodala dorostence roku 2005
  Mladíkovi Pekhartovi se splní anglický sen   Jhony  |  Talk   02:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  Bio at Tottenham Hotspur website
  Young Spurs star's agony in youth championship
  The Tottenham goal machine trying to catch Jol's eye
  Spurs striker signs new contract
  Spurs lose Ziegler to Sampdoria
  Spurs sign teenage Czech star
  The fifth Tottenham striker waiting in the wings for his big White Hart Lane chance
  Spurs striker preparing for World Cup final
  Pekhart shines again for Spurs
  Jol blocks Pekhart loan deal   Jhony  |  Talk   03:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  Premier League - Pekhart ready to earn his Spurs
  Poetic justice for Pekhart (FIFA.com)
  Pekhart: We can spring a surprise (FIFA.com)
  Czech mates living the dream (FIFA.com)
  Cinderella Czechs keep control (FIFA.com)
  Enough?   Jhony  |  Talk   03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: yes, there's one article in a Czech newspaper just about him and more mention his name but every newspaper here dedicates one or more pages to sports every day. It would be hard to find a fooball player who was not covered. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Not just mentions of his name like in squad list, but untrivial coverage. And by no means every fully professional league footballer has received such coverage.   Jhony  |  Talk   00:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the original reasons for deletion still stand - he has not come close to a first team appearance - he is not even in the Tottenham Hotspur first-team squad at the moment. Qwghlm (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Evidently, citations from WP:BIO are required to prove the opposite: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"...(comment: if Pekhart is worthy of notice for international governing body of football, it seems that he is worthy of notice for Wikipedia too)...if (Basic criteria) he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject....(comment: FIFA, UEFA, BBC Sport. It seems to be enough to satisfy this criteria)... Additional criteria: A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included....Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league."   Jhony  |  Talk   02:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly keep - he played in the highest level of competitions so it passes to BIO criteria (FIFA World Cup no matter in what age category is in my opinion the highest level of football competitions). Look at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)- the quote: Players, Managers and Referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned international competition (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteriaBartekos (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

According to precedent, caps at youth level do not make players notable. Pekhart has not had a full cap for his country yet. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Although he hasn't played in a fully professional league, he has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (BBC, Daily Mail, FIFA.com, etc) which I believe is sufficient to confer notability. Jogurney (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The sources discovered by Jhony seem to guarantee his notability.--Aldux (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if his career ended tomorrow he wouldn't be notable. The sources I've read simply state how big a future he has. Hence he fails notability at this stage. If he makes it then sure go ahead and recreate the article. Peanut4 (talk) 02:13, 31 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 (just missing a White Christmas UTC). No speedy as the nom says, but this is obviously a hoax. BLACKKITE 01:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons:Never Ending Story

The Simpsons:Never Ending Story (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, or indeed, of existence. I don't think any CSD apply though, hence bringing it here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 05:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Probably a hoax, believe it was deleted before in another form. No notability, and almost certainly OR, a hoax, or pure nonsense. Jmlk17 05:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete Hoax. A Google search of "The Simpsons:Never Ending Story" has 0 hits, "The Simpsons: Never Ending Story" has 0 hits, and doing bothh those searches without quotation marks brings up nothing about a movie (most having to do with the Simpsons episode "The Seemingly Never Ending Story"). Not to mention that reliable Simpsons sites like No Homers has no mention of it (No Homers is considered one of the biggest Simpsons fan sites in the world and has been mentione multiple times by the producers in DVD commentaries for the show and movie). TJ Spyke 06:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete' Lobojo (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete' Does not make any sense. Martarius (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. If this were real, there is a good chance that someone would have written a much better article about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. No google hits. Originally i thought this was a badly-written fork of an episode of the show from the nineteenth season but instead a gigantic hoax that proclaims itself to be "a movie based on the Simpsons movie game and LOOSELY based on the movie" WTF? No mention on The Simpsons Archive which is a pretty good place to find out about stuff like this considering that it is notable enough to have its own article Doc Strange (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - might be a hoax Macy's123 review me 18:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball delete as hoax/nonsense.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:16, 25 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, with strong reccomendation to clean up as discussed. Davewild (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Family of the United States

First Family of the United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article basically consists of a reiteration of biographical details of family members of a few recent presidents of the United States, with a couple of sentences about Abraham Lincoln and George Washington's families too. This information can be found in the articles about the respective presidents and/or their relatives, making this article both redundant as to the presidents covered and incomplete as to the 32 other presidents. The article has been tagged for cleanup for almost two years (since February 2006) but is still written in a somewhat juvenile style, with frequent uses of such titles as "First Son" and "First Granddaughter" which are implied to be official titles; Chelsea Clinton is described as having been "born a First Daughter of Arkansas" and it is claimed that "the two-year period between her father's first and second terms as governor would be the only time when she did not have an official title" until 2001. This article hasn't gotten much better since the last time it was nominated for deletion, also in February 2006, and I don't see much hope for it. I recommend that the article be deleted, possibly followed by a redirect to List of children of the Presidents of the United States or something like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In present form this is something between an essay and a list. But there are aspects of the President's family that could make up an article, such as Secret Service protection, or media attention on immediate or even non-immediate relatives. --Dhartung | Talk 17:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with above comment. It's not great in its current state, but is definitely a worthy topic. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with above comment. A worthy topic, the article can be improved. Canadian Monkey (talk) 05:58, 31 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 (merged edit history and content to the foundation talkpage, might be useful as a reference) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of grants by the bill and melinda gates foundation

List of grants by the bill and melinda gates foundation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Just a table listing five grants. No reason this couldn't be in the main article. If this were an exhaustive list of all their grants, it would violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. At least two of the entries in that list are peanuts by that Foundation's standards, which means that even if the article is kept it needs a thorough cleanup. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 05:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge this should be a single paragraph in the main article. --Arcanios (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any dantions that are notable should go into the main article in a prose form. Lobojo (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Send to user space for improvement - Article is seriously incomplete; not ready for article space. --Orlady (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge in a relevant way.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:00, 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 Keep, consensus is that sources establish sufficient notability. Davewild (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Salisbury

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

Keep: AfD chosen (by article creator) over speedy delete for community input. Thanks. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - does not meet WP:BIO only source is her obituary. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that her biodata is derived from her obits, but I do not think that necessarily precludes her from notability. A lot of people did not become known until after their deaths. Numerous articles appear in Wikipedia whose content came from their obits. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, well below WP:BIO. A high-school principal with an obituary does not add up to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, she was the head of a famous and historic NY school for 20 years, A restrictive Google news archive search demonstrates that an article could be written on her sourced in "multiple non-trivial" sources. One obit does not a notable person make, but a lengthy New York Times obit might do, and coupled with the other sources (I found 4 more in about 20 seconds) I think this nun is notable. Lobojo (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• The google news search are all recreations of her obituary, a mention of her replacement, and two artciles on the school where she is mentioned or quoted. They do not in any way establish her notability. If her only claim of notability is the position as the head of a school, her information should be merged with the school page. She was not notable prior to death and the instance of death does not create notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That's correct. To establish notablility you need to show two non-trivial sources. She got a bunch of mentions in the NYT and elsewehere, and a lengthy obit in the US paper of record. Frankly I think that if the NYT sees fit to print a obit of someone that establishes notablity automatically. If she is notable enough to they there she is certainly notabtle enough to be here alongside every single pokemon charachter.And no on point of fact, only one is a reprint of her obit. There are 3 other major sourced discussing her in a non-trivial way, so this is an open and shut case. Lobojo (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you provide some sources please. I can not find anything other then mentions of her death, retirement, or quotes that any principle of a school would have plenty of. I can not find any papers she published or causes she championed. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Sure her retirement is reported in the NYT, here she in the NYT at the schools centenial [28], here is a artilce on her and her schools annual nativity thingy: [29]. Here is her obit [30], another one on her retirement [31] Lobojo (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Those references perhaps establish notability for the school, but their mention of Ms Salisbury is only circumstantial. I must say that I haven't seen much evidence for notability for her yet. --Crusio (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the notability of the school is directly related to Sister Salisbury. In 1990, the school received a Blue Ribbon Award for Academic Excellence from the United States Department of Education. She is also notable for being vice chairwoman of the board of the New York State Association of Independent Schools (NYSAIS) and headed its accreditation commission. Respectfully submitted. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep NYT obituaries are extremely selective, and have always been accepted here as sufficient sources by themselves to prove notability. In general, heads of really major schools are often notable. But without the NYT, this would require more exact documentation. with it, there's all that could possibly be wanted. DGG (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. As principal of a notable school, notability is questionable. However, her notability is further established by the references to her role in NYSAIS and as board member on several other schools, as described in the Affiliations section. If those roles can be firmed up with additional verifiable sources, it would become a Strong Keep. Truthanado (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• comment One very strong indisputable 3rd party source for notability is generally considered sufficient. Unlike obits in other papers, the NYT obits are generally considered such a source. DGG (talk) 20:14, 29 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. Kurykh 20:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald Richardson

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Gerald Richardson. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "Delete - WP:SNOW closed; WP:BLP concerns are clear and only one user did not opt to delete entirely". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Joneses

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

Unsourced Article with no real claim to notability neonwhite user page talk 03:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete essay, unsourced, no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - unless proper citations from reliable sources can substantiate the many claims in the article, in which case I might review the position. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Not a good article, but this may (I'm not sure) actually be a notable rock band and I would encourage cleanup and the addition of citations if it's not a hoax.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I couldn't find any sources to backup any of the claims made in the article that might make them notable. The only thing that comes up at discogs is this band which is clearly not the same band the article is about. As far as i can see they appear to have only release a handful of EPs on small indie labels. In my opinion there will always be a problem sourcing this article. --neonwhite user page talk 19:13, 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 keep. John254 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Toensing

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

Unsourced article which is a biography of a living person; violates WP:BLP; missing citations for over a year; see its talk page for discussion and its editing history. NYScholar (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The article also makes statements about other living persons without giving source citations, violating WP:BLP as pertains to them as well. --NYScholar (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Article contains a lot of salient information about an influential individual. Should be kept if possible. Currently has two sources listed. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep may be notable. JJL (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The footnotes show two reliable, independent sources that give substantial coverage to the subject, and that meets WP:N. Violations of WP:BLP can be corrected without destroying an article on someone in the public eye. Anyone who appears regularly on television programs as an expert should have a Wikipedia article if proper sourcing exists. There's also a practical justification: People see someone on television and are curious about that person's history and qualifications. Therefore, an independent, neutral article on that person is a great service. Noroton (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • [replying to the above comments: :::Though the subject is "notable" and "noteworthy", the article makes many unsourced statements, which is a violation of WP:BLP. If within a year (is is currently the case), these problems could not be corrected, the article is not in keeping with Wikipedia policies pertaining to living persons and particularly WP:BLP#Sources and WP:V. The "two sources listed" are not clearly cited throughout the article in relation to unsourced statements, which have no citations; some of those statements are about other living persons and thus doubly violations of WP:BLP. Either fix the article or delete it. Not every tv pundit gets an article in Wikipedia, espec. if it is not properly sourced. Those editors who want to keep the article can step up to correcting its problems. --NYScholar (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, removing material that has been unsourced is the answer to WP:BLP problems, not article deletion. Feel free to make it a stub. Editors who have an interest in the subject can then rebuild it. The subject is clearly Wikipedia-worthy. Noroton (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep: should be OK now, please review - links added; uncited paragraph regarding law rv. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep does seem ok now, sufficient sources for notable participation in multiple events. DGG (talk) 20:16, 29 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 03:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bridgeheads

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

Music group does not appear to meet WP:BAND criteria. No independent coverage available to establish notability at this time. shoeofdeath (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BAND, no indep. reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per NawlinWiki.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:58, 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. Wizardman 03:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burying Brian

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

This is an article about a TV series still in production (WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL), with insufficient WP:RS coverage to establish WP:FICTION notability ... a seconded WP:PROD was removed by the author without comment. —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - it looks like the Summary section is a copyvio of http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page//1414342 —72.75.72.63 (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This page shouldn't be deleted because the show is now in pre production and will be coming to tv screens in new zealand in the next few months.My suggestion is that a note be attached to the article stating that its an upcoming tv show, i feel this is a fair compromise as on upcoming wrestling pay per view pages a note stating its a upcoming event is on the page and there is never any complaints about them.

I've also re-written the summary, so there shouldn't b any problem with wateva copyvio means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMorleyRoxs (talk • contribs) 04:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - copy-vio. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - copy-vio.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 12:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Excalibur Alternative

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

Novel with no assertion of notability, just a short note on who wrote and the full plot. Failed PROD. Collectonian (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Apparent bad-faith hasty nom - nominator made no attempt before PROD to add {{notability}} or other tags to alert editors to problems in article first, or discuss issues on talk page, as recommended by deletion policy. Just because a intermediate step is not required is no reason to skip it. Courtesy and good-faith go a long way. I assume you think this is the proper way to do things, so "bad-faith" is aimed more at your methods, not necessarily your motives. Please, PRODs and AFDs are intended as methods of last reasort, not first. - BillCJ (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC) - (Revised comments. - BillCJ (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

• Considering you were the editor who de-prodded the article without actually addressing the notability issue noted in the PROD nomination and the one who said "take it to AfD", I find it interesting that you now call this a bad-faith nom. Articles should establish notability when they are created, but in reality, most don't. When I come across such an article, if I feel an article should be able to assert notability, I tag first to give editors a chance. This article, however, has not had any real editing done to it in over six months and seems to be a fan created article about just on of the many millions of novels in the world. All novels are not notable, nor does the notability of the author automatically descend to everything they ever wrote. As a PROD is not an immediate thing, it was sufficient notice for a single novel that I don't think notability could or will be asserted for when it has sat there virtually unchanged since its creation in May. I don't just PROD or AfD articles on a whim. Collectonian (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I said improvable - take to AFD if you must (emphasis added) - I assumed you would anyway, but was just stating the alternative for the record, but I wasn't approving of the AFD. I also posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction asking for help in improving the article, as I have not worked on many novel pages, though I have worked on improving notability in other types of novels. (Such notification is permitted, and is not considered canvassing.) Indeed, some improvement has already been made. In addition, it didn't even have project tags, which I have also added - those show up on pages watched by project members, and are the best way to bring an article to a project's attention. Next time, check on the talk page to see if it has a project tag - the talk page link on this page was red, so it was obvious to me it did not, so I corrected the situation. If there are no project tags, chances are a lot of the editors who could improve the article don't even know it exists. I'll be honest here: I've had the page on my watchlist for several months, but I didn't stop to read it at the time I watch-listed it. Had I done so, I may have spotted some of the things you did, and tried to adress them then. I was surprised at how poor the article was when I read it this time, but I do believe it can be improved, as has already. - BillCJ (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I believe notability can be asserted, as the book is written by on of the top athors in Science Fiction, and based on a collection of short stories by another well-known writer in the field. Of course, if notability cannot be asserted, then the article should be deleted, whether I think it's notable or not. - BillCJ (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I think this article is salvageable. Give it some time, tag it appropriately, and re-AfD if no improvements are made within a reasonable time frame. --Kweeket ^Talk 02:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - If we delete all articles at this stage, Wikipedia will never get anywhere. Give an article at least a bit of time to build up, for others to contribute their knowledge, before it is swiped away.-Mastrchf91- 03:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - sufficient, IMO. Appears to have been improved since nomination? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It took me only a few moments to pull up some interviews and reception and add those to the article, which only goes to show this AfD is a bit hasty. --Kweeket ^Talk 05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do that myself as I don't really know what particulars are considered notable for a novel page, and don't have the time right now to get into learning it. Thanks, Kweeket for doing some quick legwork. - BillCJ (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion (music industry)

Deletion (music industry) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Useless, unsourced, original research

Delete - I'm not sure as to why this article is still here. It has been up since March 2007. Plenty enough time for the original creator to add proper information and expand. In my opinion it should be removed.--Ghostfacebandit (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's not useless, it's hardly original research and a perfectly decent article can be written about this. The notion of 'deleted records' may seem arcane to the MP3/Bittorrent generation but like 'out of print' books it's a reasonable concept for Wikipedia. It's not just for the 'original creator' to improve articles, I searched for ten minutes and added four sources myself. Nick mallory (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely worth an article. Certainly not useless. Now well enough sourced.--Michig (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Dhartung has improved this article no end. Well done. Nick mallory (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. AFD is not cleanup, but I have nonetheless made changes to the article that should address the complaints. I had hoped that someone more knowledgeable than I would come along and improve it. Please note for the future that "usefulness" is not a deletion rationale, and original research is distinct from unreferenced material. This was easily verified if the nominator had bothered to take the time (that argument goes both ways, you know). --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also see WP:USELESS. Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided in deletion debates unless it supports a cogent argument. --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, looks good, sourced and informative now.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, informative article with sources. No problems here. Lankiveil (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - The article may not be perfect, but its informative, fairly well written and has several citations to reliable sources. The subject itself will be of interest to anybody curious about the music industry. I see no reason to delete.- Hal Raglan (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep-I don't see this page as useless at all, in fact it is very useful and just needs a bit of work. H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:08, 29 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.