Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 30

< December 29	December 31 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Broad RFC on the nature and purpose of notability and the GNG Discussion on the current notability guidelines Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

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

The result wasKeep; interested editors may merge as they see fit.JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Spelljammer crystal spheres

A list of objects with no real world notability written from an in uiverse perspective. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, just because the content is verifiable does not mean it should have an article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I don't find this indiscriminate at all. If Wikipedia should be anything, it's useful, and I could totally imagine want to have this list close at hand at some point or another. Ford MF (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article itself is not indiscriminate - no article is (apart from List of Everything). The point is that Wikipedia is not indiscriminate in its content - there are some things that it has been decided by consensus do not belong in an encyclopaedia. Lots of things are useful (links to essay); advertisments are useful to people looking for products to buy, guides are useful to people planning trips to cities or playing though computer games, forums are useful to people wanting to discuss topics with others and news reports can be very useful to people who want to keep up with what's going on in the world. However Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and so such usefulness does not neccessarily mean that a topic is suitable for inclusion. [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]]

None of your examples are pertinent to the example here, since this isn't an advertisement, a travel guide, or a game guide. Nor is it operating as a forum. The problem with arguing by examples when you just pick examples of unrelated things that are bad is....it doesn't actually make your point for you. Try sticking to the actual article instead. Or at least, pick relevant examples. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean "useful" in the generic sense. Bottle openers are useful, but I don't expect Wikipedia to open my beer for me. I meant "encyclopedically useful", as in, a body of information one might plausibly turn to an encyclopedia for at some point, like List of Star Trek characters: G-M. Ford MF (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misinterpretted you. However I think that that things like encyclopaedic usefulness are inherently subjective and hard to define, which is there are polcies and guidelines that outline standards for inclusion based on, notability, verifiability and consensus. I do not feel the topic of the article in question meets those standards. [[Guest9999 (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]]

You "feel" that it doesn't? Wait, did you just say your subjectivity beats my subjectivity? Ford MF (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess that would be up to the community. [[Guest9999 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Keep/merge Might be better as part of the Spelljammer article. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge this referenced and well-organized information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Well researched & nicely put together; a merge would just clutter another article. --mordicai. (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Important aspect of a D&D campaign setting. Sufficiently well-organized and referenced to stand alone as a valid sub-article of the main topic. --Polaron | Talk 21:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep/merge Might be better as part of the Spelljammer article, though this will depend on article size. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep; contains an important subset of information about a fictional universe that is notable in and of itself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited (links to essay), notability is established through significant coverage by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, I do not see any such sources present in the article. Although consensus can change it is worth noting that in the past list of fictional planets without secondary sources have been deleted at AfD, for an example see here. [[Guest9999 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]]

That makes about as much sense as saying that it is worth noting that in the past rock bands have been deleted, so future rock bands brought to AfD should be deleted. There's little to no similarity between the two articles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The similarities that I see are that they were both lists of planets from a fictional universe without any real world information or secondary sources. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Strong Delete fails WP:FICTION and WP:V, no sources for real world notabilty, none of the keep votes has any policy based reason to keep the article. Secret ^account 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Definitely. Keeping articles like this is setting a dangerous precedent that we can have lists of everything. None of the "keep" arguments state how it meets Wiki policy other that just asserting that this is an "important aspect of a D&D campaign setting". I don't mean to want to delete just because I have no inherent interest in this, but the scope of audience is too small and the sub-sub-sub level of minutia is just too great. It's clear that this is a personal issue to some of you; I recommend not bringing personal bias into the picture as it's pretty obvious when it happens and it does nothing but weaken the argument. Merge it into some larger existing article if you wish, but I don't see any way this merits a separate article. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a suitable reason for deletion. It's funny how people get a little personal when you start dismissing their interests as "sub-sub-sub level of minutia"? Pray tell, what is the scope of the audience? Just how many people play these games?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Response Yes, you were who I was referring to as the one having a personal issue with this. It's pretty clear you have a vested interest in keeping this article and we acknowledge that you are a pretty big D&D fan. However, saying inflammatory things like "it's funny when," and "that makes about as much sense," doesn't help your cause. Repeated edit battles also do not. It appears sophomoric and it's easy to dismiss. What is the scope of the audience? In my opinion, the scope is limited to people who not only play D&D, but people who play D&D in this certain world. How many people play these games? I don't know, I can't find out, and that helps my argument - we have no real way of establishing notability.

I have interests in things that shouldn't be on Wiki; for example, I am a rock climber and I climb a LOT at certain crags in and around Phoenix. I can discuss the vagaries and textures of certain routes for hours. It has great personal interest to me. However, I'm fairly confident that that sort of information is not appropriate for Wiki. Remember, popularity and importance do not necessarily imply notability, although they could correlate positively. Also, remember that Wiki is consensus based and not always a strict interpretation of cast-in-stone rules - meaning that those of us who aren't "in the know" about this article's subject have a right to cast our deletion opinions. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't like me saying that "it's funny when"? Okay, let me rephrase it: minutia is an argument, "the sub-sub-sub level of minutia" is hyperbole and not conductive to discussion. If you don't know how many people play these games, then you don't know the scope of the audience and have no right to dismiss it on such grounds. If there were ten of thousands of people who could discuss those crags with you, then I'm sure there would be articles in Wikipedia on the subject.

As for Wiki-battles, I find it a bit odd that you would go after me, but not Guest9999. Why is not in any way personal for those who spend all their time on Wikipedia searching out articles to delete?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:King of Hearts who deleted this page seems not to have closed this AfD, so I'll do it. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trudy (coronation street)

The page is essentially a stub with no sources nor indications of notability (per WP:FICTION). It has been tagged for insufficient sources, and notability concerns, since August 2007 and October 2007, respectively. No pages link to this, so I see little cause for conflict. -- Lewellyn ^talk 23:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(Speedy) Delete - one of the most ridiculous articles I have witnessed; I regret not noticing this myself. Words can't describe a reason other than common sense - it's just ridiculous and completely unncessary. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. unnotable.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ford MF (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I wouldn't call this utterly ridiculous, but it does fail the fiction notability guideline through a presumed lack of third party sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is utterly ridiculous - it's character seen for less than 5 seconds in a past sponsorship clip for a tv programme. Now if that isn't ridiculous, I give up on wikipedia (or just on some of its contributers). It certainly is very far from being even noteworthy on an encyclopedia... Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's utterly non-notable and whether people discuss it on forums is extreme fancruft (I haven't seen this character myself and can't find any pictures of it on the Internet). But it still falls short of being ridiculous especially given the amount of cruft we still already have that new users might judge as a sign that articles like this are OK for inclusion.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And it doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't meet a policy-written CSD outright, but it certainly does in my own eyes. As far as I am concerned (my opinion this is), if an article has no right to have any existance in the encyclopedia, where a debate will achieve nothing other than the same as common sense would, then it should be deleted speedily, regardless of whether hard-written policies state as much or not. It is purely my own opinion, so take it as you will. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Believe me, I scrutinized the CSD for this one. I suspect that we'll just have to wait it out. Since the only links to the article were spawned by the AfD, I'm sure that it'll remain just as obscure, and that it will be missed about as much as we'll remember it in a few months. ;) -- Lewellyn ^talk 21:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

- Being American, I cannot judge on potential notability of the character. All I can say is that, in the article's current state, the criteria appear far from met. Also, even if the character was only on-screen for a number of seconds, that doesn't preclude the possibility of notability. As an example, the famous 1984 commercial was aired once, in a single country, for sixty seconds, twenty-odd years ago, and is still considered influential in advertising worldwide. So, from my external view, I hesitate to call the article utterly ridiculous. However, I will steadfastly continue to claim that the article does not currently merit inlusion in Wikipedia, in its current state. For all I know, Trudy could be spectacularly groundbreaking for reasons currently widely unknown. (My wild imagination suggests such bizarre things as: Being the first ultra-realistic CG spokesperson on British television whose voice was synthesized by a cluster of 128 salvaged BBC Micros, and audiences not knowing that the spokesperson was not "real"...) But until there is sourcing indicating any notability whatsoever... Well... -- Lewellyn ^talk 13:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This could be closed per WP:SNOW right now. There is coverage of this character, actually, but none in reliable sources. I'm curious as to what this character looks like, because obviously I don't watch Coronation Street.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm amazed it is being taken seriously.. This "character" is no more notable than any extra who has a small part in any sponsorship clip for any programme. So what if people on a forum have discussed it? If I picked one randomly, started a discussion then started an article, would it be any more than just "negligably notable"? Come on, this is daft and I still stand by my common sense speedy. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Tyra

In my opinion, this person does not meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who offered some sources on the talk page, but not sources that I felt satisfied WP:RS. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless some more substantial notability evidence. Pseudomonas_(talk) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. If what is said in the article is true, then he's notable. But until it's sourced.... article is sourced--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I did find one reference. Otherwise, I've found almost nothing on him at all (Google keeps giving me lists of names, like "____ Thomas, Tyra Banks, etc."). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Reads like a memorial or CV. Ford MF (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete memorial page for NN person Doc Strange (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Despite the one ref (which isn't terribly reliable), I'm finding bupkis about his supposedly being the youngest director of a marching band. Unlikely to be a hoax, but the lack of sources is telling. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep per Brewcrewer's source, still not fully convinced but it's a decent enough start. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Dean of the Crane School of Music [1]. Easy notability.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Appointed at age 26 as a director of a major university marching band, Phd. and composer of fight songs for other schools and more. I'd say that satisfies notability guidelines at least. Awotter (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep OK, notability has been established, but I agree with Ten Pound Hammer that it's good enough for now Doc Strange (talk) 21:36, 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 keep & cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bernardo Sandals

This article claims that a certain brand of shoes or sandals has made a significant cultural impact, but does not provide sufficient evidence (or any evidence at all). I suspect a conflict of interest by the author, Shoedog2000 (talk · contribs), who has no other edits to his name. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep as notable as any other 60-year-old clothing line created by a notable artist, but clean up and Wikify. Ford MF (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Keep the article. But the article should definitely be expanded, and wikified. Ohmpandya (Talk) 00:56, 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 wasKeep interested editors may merge/edit as they see fit. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biography of Pope John Paul II

This is completely unencyclopedic. Pope John Paul II should be about his biography, not a seperate article in and of itself. In fact, I have found no other "Biography of" articles here. Since Pope John Paul II's article size is getting to be a problem, we could split it into separate articles on periods of his life such as Early life of Jan Smuts. My user account (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This article certainly IS encyclopedic. The subject certainly is notable and verification of the biographical details is not in question. The only discernible reason I see is that there is no other article titled as such (Biography of ...) in Wikipedia - which should not be a a reason for nomination since the Wikipedia is not paper. I hope this does not become a popularity vote as the AFD votes tend to end up parroting each other just like the seagulls from Finding Nemo - mindlessly delete, delete, delete, ad nauseum no matter if its right or wrong.... --Eqdoktor (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree delete it An article should not be titled "Biography of....", that is as you said unencyclopedic. Ohmpandya (Talk) 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary fork. Ford MF (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete already in Pope John Paul II Doc Strange (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually not all of it. It is missing a bit, that's why I suggested splitting into sections. My user account (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, rename and edit: I suggest that the article be renamed as Early life of Pope John Paul II and edited appropriately as such (removing the later details already covered elsewhere). Notability is not an issue, just duplication of some details. The Wikipedia is not paper - I don't see the burning need to delete the article just because its unique within Wikipedia. --Eqdoktor (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is, actually. Pope John Paul II should be where the info goes, not a second article. Notability is an issue because the specific Biography of Pope John Paul II is not notable enough to merit its own article per se, though the info should be covered in the Pope John Paul II article. My user account (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete based on current format, but allow creation of an "early life" article instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge. Main problem is the title of this article and the existence of an alternative article. There is much good content here. The parts of this article that are good text are worth conserving should be merged into the existing Pope John Paul II. If the Pope John Paul II article is then thought to be too long, sub-articles can be spawned form it (it is quite long already although I am not sure that I personally mind long articles very much). Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep/Merge - Far more useful at Pope John Paul II, but the article itself could be an expanded version of the main article. Kilo•T 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge the useful information into Pope John Paul II, per above. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge: There are over 1,000 published biographies of this man. I'm thinking that a separate article is not necessarily unwarranted. That being said, it doesn't seem like there is enough unique info to warrant a separate article. If it did, I would support it. For now, I agree that it should be merged. Phyesalis (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge with main article. Avruchtalk 03:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete: this is what Pope John Paul II is for. The present article is an unnecessary fork. Goochelaar (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge this unnecessary and improper fork. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete because it is unencycopedic. Tavix (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. This looks to contain a surprising amount of valid content, but it rightfully belongs in Pope John Paul II. It's going to be a large job. --Lockley (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep: main article of John Paul II is long enough, its good to have his Biography seperated--Drhlajos (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget . 12:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge – Have to say a nicely written article. However, with that said, Wikipedia already has a “Biography” on this Pope at , you guessed it at Pope John Paul II. Since we are not limited by size, unless Wikipedia has recently placed limits on how long an article can be, I say merge. Shoessss | Chat 14:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge anything useful into Pope John Paul II; if that's considered too big it could be split somehow, but a parallel "biography of" article is not the way forward. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment SIXTEEN people registered their opinions the first time around... and it has to be relisted for further debate? You've got to be kidding. Do you plan to do this with every article? Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Mandsford. Relisting is not needed when so many people have submitted recommendations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge into Pope John Paul II article. STORMTRACKER 94 15:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The editors who think that this is a fork have not looked at the article, what links to it, or its history. This is a Summary style breakout article of Pope John Paul II#Biography, and was created as such. The overall structure of the parent article didn't develop in the way that it was expected to back in 2005. Multiple sub-articles were broken out of the Pope John Paul II#Biography section, from the individual sub-sections, rather than a single one. But this is easy to fix. Simply rename the article to Early life and church career of Pope John Paul II and refocus it to be a summary-style breakout sub-article below Pope John Paul II#Early life and church career (merging those two sections), moving the content dealing with the other parts of the biography into the other biography sub-articles (Health of Pope John Paul II, 1981 Pope John Paul II assassination attempt, Funeral of Pope John Paul II, and so forth). That requires nothing more than the rename button and the edit button, which every editor with an account has. An administrator hitting a delete button is not required. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Pope John Paul II, but keep all or nearly all the content of this article and, for space reasons, split off other parts of that article, leaving summaries. All the content can remain, in other words, but the forking should be done with subjects, not with biography. The reason is simple: We're not here to confuse readers. We name biography articles by the best-known name of the subject. If we do otherwise, then we just create confusion to no good purpose. The most radical forking could be Papacy of John Paul II, but the subject is best covered by continuing to fork smaller topics because the subject is so important and sources are so numerous. Uncle G's suggestion is something I could agree with, if there is precedent. If not, this will be the first of many partial biographies in Wikipedia, and I'm not sure we want that (we'd be getting deletion discussions on Early life of Roy Rogers, Early life of Margaret Thatcher, Early life of Charles Darwin ...) Better to have new articles on Cause for canonization of Pope John Paul II, Pope John Paul II's relations with other denominations (we already have an article on his relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church), Social and political stances of Pope John Paul II, List of works by Pope John Paul II, etc. etc. etc. There is, of course, a Category:Pope John Paul II. And by the way, some of these sections are enormous and could be cut back to three, even two paragraphs. Do we really need so much information in the JPII article -- now -- on his health, when we've got a whole article on that subject? Things like that can be cut down drasticly from the main article, leaving room for biography material. This should be the one article where readers can get a concise overview of the subject. Noroton (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I read through this article and have not found anything in it that isn't already sufficiently covered in its parent. Lets remember that we are writing an encyclopedia which means that as Noroton above stated - we should be providing a concise overview. If you want more information than this, there are several excellent books on the life of John Paul II. Trusilver (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Object. I strongly object to the use of AFD in a clear-cut content discussion. This doesn't seem like the most effective application of WP:SUMMARY that I've ever seen, but it's absolutely not a discussion for AFD. There's absolutely no reason to remove the revision history from this valid content. This should be speedy closed, and interested parties should resolve how to use WP:SUMMARY at talk:Pope John Paul II. --JayHenry (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasKeep !Votes to the effect of "delete and then rewrite it" were ignored. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North Central Victoria

The article is completely unsourced. The topic seems not to be what the title suggests but a discussion on what actually is north central Victoria without deciding on an answer. It then goes into discussing a local Australian rules football competition. Even if the topic can be defined clearly enough to create an article (which I doubt, but I am happy to be corrected), none of this can be saved. Mattinbgn\^talk 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ford MF (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is a very confusing article. Delete and recreate if this region is a sensible name for something. --Bduke (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Article is non sequiter and I agree with Bduke on recreation if sensibility can be confirmed. --VS ^talk 01:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Delete it as the nom said, no sources at all. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete, article in its current state is very nearly nonsense. "North Central Victoria" does seem to be a term used by the Victorian government for a discrete region though (see [2], [3]), although whether a purely administrative region like this can have a sensible article written on it is debatable. Lankiveil (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

We have a few for WA regions - eg Wheatbelt (Western Australia), Great Southern (Western Australia) - however they are clearly and unambiguously defined, each have an LGA association, a development corporation etc, and the ABS cover them (although often not with the same names) so there's really no debate at all over boundaries and such things. Orderinchaos 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - unsourced and no assertion of ntoability. No evidence that the term has any currency as a regional name (other than the obvious fact of being north of central Victoria). The article starts with a confusing summary of two potential definitions for the region, then moves on to become a coatrack for a local football competition. Euryalus (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keeep - The place exists and could be greatly expanded. Kilo T 16:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly would you keep from this article? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The article consists of a brief and confusing place description followed by local football details. The football details are both irrelevant and non-notable. The "place" as an article subject is also not notable. It exists in the sense that any piece of land has a centre, and part of that centre is north of the other parts. It doesn't seem to exist as a recognised "region", an identifiable community, an area with common geographic features or in any other official or notable way. There are two mentions listed above but in the first case it is in the context of a shorthand way of breaking down the State. The second is a reference to a catchment management authority, which while physically located in the northern part of central Victoria is not of itself sufficient to demonstrate a commonality of townships or communities that would create a definable region. Even the article itself is incapable of explaining where this "north central Victoria" begins and ends. Towns and genuine communities, regions or subdivisions are notable, but the subject of this article is none of these. Euryalus (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete PN and ors. No sensible justification can be made for it's keeping. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete NC is not an official region, although several official and semi-official sources cover it - in particular water and environment [4]. Therefore OR problems arise in trying to define it, and I tend to agree with Euryalus on the rest. Orderinchaos 14:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete The unofficial and insufficiently defined nature of the region results in a superfluous, artificial entity that will lead to unnecessary overlapping between articles. Murtoa (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I thought for sure after reading the above opinions, that I would be on the delete crew. However, did anyone Google this? Really? Check it out: gov.au, NCCMA - North Central Catchment Management Authority (of Victoria), Waterwatch, The energy footprint for North Central Victoria, The Australian Society of Agronomy, Government document on secondary salinity, this list goes on and on. Obvious notability of an established region. I have a hard time believing most of the people above took the time to do a simple Google search before expressing their vehement denial of notability. The article is poorly written by some football fan, but this region most definitely exists - and in an established way. However, per nom, not much can be kept. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off harsh. It's late and I'm tired. :-) Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, Lankiveil has commented on what was found his search abave should you wish to read what he said. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that there is nothing that can be kept (not even a definition of the term, given there are two contradictory ones) wouldn't it be better to delete this and start again.? I will check out your links shortly but as a former resident of the state for over 20 years, I wouldn't know it from a hole in the ground and I lived little more than 30 min drive from Kyneton and Woodend. It has no common currency unlike other regions in Victoria such as Wimmera,. The Mallee, Gippsland or Western District but is a purely grab bag term as demonstrated earlier by Euryalus. Mattinbgn\^talk 03:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly concede that the term is in use (and I'm probably one of the guilty ones referred to above by Tanthalas39!), but still have doubts as to its resonance. For example, the first of the links referenced above gov.au seems clear about North Central as a region, but look at the other regions it defines in Victoria - East Coast Victoria, Eastern Victoria, West Coast Victoria and Western Victoria. These are all terms I'm unfamiliar with, after 27 years residency in the state, whereas the likes of Wimmera, The Mallee, Gippsland or Western District are alternative terms for Victorian regions in common parlance. Ultimately I think the term in question is a regional aggregation that will serve little purpose. Murtoa (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite - what worries me about some of the delete votes is they are sort of saying this too - ie delete and rewrite - deletion often means no article should exist on this subject and I don't think that is the intention of all the opinions given. I believe an article should exist, is probably writable but needs referencing and balance. I suspect there is no more meaningful name for the area and it would be nice to have the region covered like other regions in Australia. Unfortunately I am unable to contribute to a rewrite / clean-up right now. I note there are several comments which support the view NC is not an official region, although several official and semi-official sources cover it - in particular water and environment [3]. Therefore OR problems arise in trying to define it - when we wote the now featured article on the Riverina we had the same problem with conflicting definitions - it took a lot of research but all referenced and there not OR to sort this out - I don't beleive the issues raised are necessarily unsurmountable in writing an article about the region - we do have a regional approach in Australia but there is often inconsistency and it needs to be worked through - hence there will be no sharp boundaries but suspect there will be an article subject witht hese inconsistencies (and commonalities) to be highlighted. --Matilda ^talk 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sindh TV

Too many problems. Delete without prejudice for future recreation. Ra2007 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree Delete it Without a doubt delete it. There are many problems. Ohmpandya
Delete per nomination. Ra2007 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Conditional keep. It's not so bad. The article's only one or two sources away from being perfectly okay. Ford MF (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If it needs cleaning up then that's what we should be doing, not deleting it. I've made a start. Didn't you do a Google search before nominating? There are loads of sources, particularly in the news archive. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - no proper rationale for deletion given in the nomination. Any content issues can be dealth with through editting -- Whpq (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carlito and Santino Marella

Non-notable tag team as of yet. Per precedent, teaming together for one match is definitely not notable. Kane and The Big Show and Eugene and William Regal were both just deleted as non-notable, and they both won the tag championship. Clearly, this is also a crystal ball issue. The information is best kept is their individual articles, especially for now. Nikki311 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 23:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete NN tag team Doc Strange (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete No sources, no claims of notability. They have only wrestled 1 match together, so there is no way to predict if they will be notable or not since mid-carders get put into make-shift tag teams all the time (i.e. Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio, Edge and Rey Mysterio, Eugene and William Regal, Jim Duggan and Super Crazy, Hardcore Holly and Billy Gunn, Hardcore Holly and Scorpio, etc.). TJ Spyke 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete They wrestled one match together, which is hardly enough to make them a notable tag team. Calgary (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ford MF (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not sourced and definetly not notable. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Nn. D.M.N. (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Completely NN. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Has anyone noticed the under construction tag can everyone please recognize the tag's guidelines including the do not delete until finshed notice, so respectfully refrain from deletion--68.199.62.0 (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is since the team has only wrestled once they are not remotly close to being notiable yet. Teams that have been together for months have been deleted. In short, no ammount of construction can save this article at this time so that argument is invalid. If they do become notibale in the future the article can be recreated then. --67.68.153.60 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. The article while short does assert notability and has a reliable reference. Happy New Year! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin. The page that Le Grand mentions is just an essay and isn't a requirement to follow when editing. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - iMatthew (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Nn. Cheers, L A X 11:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EX600

A specification sheet for a specific model of laptop. No indication that the product is notable other than being "light and also financial attractive", no sources. Wikipedia is not a manual or brochure. Kateshort forbob 23:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

ETA Prod contested by creator, which is why it's here. --Kateshort forbob 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. This isn't even an article. Ford MF (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Agree to both the people above. This is just random info. It isn't an article. Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I considered placing a speedy deletion tag, but couldn't find appropriate criteria, except perhaps G11 blatant advertising. (I didn't think it fitted under any article categories listed in A7 unnotable?) --Kateshort forbob 02:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It might meet A1. No context - but is it a "very short article"? Certainly it provides little to no context. And there is also WP:SNOW. Delete anyway.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. An individual model of laptop is not inherently notable, and no evidence otherwise is provided in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:52, 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 --JForget 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ram ravana war

This seems like an original essay concerning a non-notable story. It ends with a very original conclusion of "All these information and instances simply tell us that this war was not a simple as we have framed it in our minds. Rather from this point of view it was a kind of world war only." Only 9 non-wiki google hits for this title. And of course, no sources and done as a single upload Mbisanz (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete. Unsourced, OR, random personal musings on the materials of Ramayana. rudra (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete it The are no external links, no links to other articles. Delete it. --Ohmpandya 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as OR, essayistic nonsense. Ford MF (talk) 00:57, 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 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liu Ch'ing

I must say, 10th century history is not my forte in my study of Chinese history, but I have not heard of this person. The current stub does not give enough information for me to be able to conduct research on this person to ascertain whether this person existed. Unless more information is added, since there is no verified information here, delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V. There's no evidence at this point to suggest that the article is not a hoax. In fact, it could be speedied as an attack page (no joke). Only Google results relating to this topic seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia and similar content which has been copied from this article which has existed for over three years. The original contributor had a history of good-faith edits but this appeared to be that person's first contribution, so it might have been a test that slipped through.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I know more or less nothing about 10th century China, but I do know when an article fails WP:V and this is a prime example of it. Google Scholar and Google Books do not turn up anything that seems relevant to verifying this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I know very little about this period of Chinese history, as well as transliteration differences, but it is possible this is about the successor to Liu Min, who founded the Northern Han dynasty in Shanxi, but died in 954? His name is Liu Chengjun. Just wondering if this is possibly a redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Further I think it is Liu Min, aka Liu Ch'ung or Chung, d. 954. There seems to have been a Ripley's Museum exhibit using the name Liu Ch'ung that highlights the dicoria, although the only reference to this in a Chinese ruler I can verify is Xiang Yu. There's a dicoria-afflicted scholar once named Shên Yo, but I can't find out whether we have an article (it seems we should) due to transliteration changes. --Dhartung | Talk 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete This should be deleted. The first sentence stated... and the only sentence, is completely random. Delete it. Ohmpandya (Talk) 00:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V, or redirect, if we can figure out who this is actually supposed to be. Ford MF (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I was kinda angling for a redirect, but now I wonder whether we should just use it for the Chinese Communist author aka Liu Qing, who seems rather important yet without an article. --Dhartung | Talk 11:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The current content of the article is "Liu Ch'ing, who became the governor of China's Shansi province in 955 A.D., was born with two pupils in each eye." Nothing to be lost from deleting it now at all since its minimal, rudimentary content and context are now preserved here. As I suggested earlier it could be speedied as G10 (pages that disparage their subject, even if the subject is not a living person) and possibly A1 for lacking much context.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're joking. This is obviously not an attack page and clearly has enough context. It's not a speedy candidate. --- RockMFR 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree that there's no way this qualifies as an attack article. I am also not disputing the current content being subpar. I'm just putting up some information I've found in the hopes that someone will make a better article (which might be me if I get around to it, but as I said I don't really know a lot about the topic). I think we should be constructive whenever possible. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 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. Spebi 10:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whopper Freakout

This advertising campaign is not notable. A quick Google search does not bring up anything other than Youtube and blogs, which cannot establish notability. NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom. NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 22:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Verifiable by reliable sources --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What reliable sources? All I see are blogs and YouTube, which are not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And the official website is self published and cannot establish notability per WP:N. NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as insufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No long-term notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not a classification in the DSM-IV. Or notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nn. Ford MF (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete for long term notability, although this campaign has been covered by USA Today and the trades: [5] [6] [7]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calwatch (talk • contribs) 00:05, 31 December 2007

Precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathon Ware. You probably know him as the "I like turtles" boy, but his article was deleted due to lack of long term notability. Substitute USA Today with The Washington Post in the above argument and you basically have what happened over there. NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep as per AfD precedent on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coq Roq -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewmocracy which I believe is relevant. If that can be merged (and mind that I was the nominator) then I think this should be too. Both are food-product advertising campaigns, and this one is at least as notable if not more so. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, merging into what? -- RoninBK _{T C} 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for not being explicit about that. Merge to Burger King of course. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] dtm (nightclub)

The result was speedy delete - A7. Neither club asserted notability. --Michael Greiner 00:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reason for nominating is, both of these does not indicate notability in any shape or form. Jelly the Supermodel (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Also nominated:

delete both - as no proof - or assertion - of notability. --Ybbor^Talk 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete both, A7 They're nightclubs. So what? Blueboy 96 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep dtm, no opinion on Mixei. dtm is one of the first, and thus most famous, gay nightclubs in Helsinki. JIP | Talk 22:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as A7 and keep the pro-LGBT WP:BIAS out of Wikipedia. If they were 'straight' nightclubs they wouldn't get an article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagged. There is not a single Wikipedia-notable nightclub in the city I live in, and there are a considerable number, so I don't see why these should be kept either. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a directory.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete both per above comments - lack of sufficient notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:04, 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 The Result was Nomination withdrawn. --Ybbor^Talk 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of longest reigning monarchs of all time

Looking at the talk page, it seems there are dozens of rulers which even a cursory glance around the web will turn up that fit into this list. The number of rulers of states in the Holy Roman Empire, or Indian princely states, African monarchies, etc. are almost uncountable, and many of them likely have had rulers whose reign would put them into the list, as the talk page can easily attest to. This list is not simply incomplete, its incompleteness makes its figures downright wrong. It would be almost impossible to create an accurate article/list, and therefore I propose that rather than perpetuate inaccurate information, we shut it down entirely. --Ybbor^Talk 22:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Verifiable by reliable sources. Improve, not remove. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep, and, IMO Merge with List of longest reigning current monarchs. Garret Beaumain (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Perfectly reasonable topic and the talk page debate shows that it's undergoing constant improvement. Isn't that the point of wikipedia? Deleting something for being incomplete would condemn everything to deletion. Nick mallory (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by nominator - "Undergoing constant improvement"? There were lists posted in Feburary and March, the former of which the editor refused to add because the article would still be woefully inaccurate. And while I agree that incompleteness is generally no reason for deletion, in this case the list can never be complete, and as it attempt to rank monarchs, it's incompleteness makes it wrong. As an analogy, Wikipedia:Translation states "the general consensus of Wikipedia contributors is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing." In that same vein, I would submit that a list that is not now, nor ever can be accurate is worse than nothing. Incompleteness is not the point. --Ybbor^Talk 22:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Every single Wikipedia article is incomplete. If perfect completeness was a requirement for article, we should shut Wikipedia down entirely, as every single article is wrong. The analogy of machine translation is entirely specious; translation will likely introduce errors. Changing order leaves all of the information intact. If you have additional entries that are missing and belong here, please add them to the talk page for addition, or, even better, grab the bull by the horns and add them yourself. Alansohn (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep for reasons specified by Nick mallory. Tennis expert (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Since it deals with 'high culture' as opposed to 'low culture', I guess it's an encyclopedic list by default.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I don't find ranking by verifiable (sourceable) length of reign much different from alphabetical ordering -- that is, it isn't synthesis as I believe consensus understands it. There is a small issue of the accuracy of ancient sources, but I don't think that's necessarily our concern, as long as we can source. --Dhartung | Talk 00:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep There is no original research here. Placing a list in an order that provides useful and encyclopedic information creates a notable list. This is a widely studied subject ad there should be ample information to fill in any gaps. Alansohn (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is widely studies (as written above), and it should not be deleted. The list is nicely organised, I don't know why it was tagged? --Ohmpandya (Talk) 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)!!
Keep per Dhartung. Ford MF (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I still feel the article should be deleted, I recognize that there seems to be firm consensus to keep the article. Per WP:SNOW, and so as not to unnecessarily clog up either AfD or the page itself, I withdraw my nomination.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rocky Costanzo

Fails WP:BIO. Does not establish notability of director. No mention of major awards. Does not appear to have been subject of multiple independent articles. TheRingess (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Very weak delete. I would tend to agree, but the Google hits look quite promising.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless some real sourcing happens soon. Ford MF (talk) 01:02, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chi-Chi (Scarface)

This minor character does not warrant is own article, and I don't think there's much here worth merging. Delete then redirect to Scarface (1983 film). --Nlu (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as pointlessly minor fictional character. Ford MF (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's probably going to get recreated again, considering the cult following of the film with hip-hop fans, so I also suggest a WP:SALT on it too Doc Strange (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete I've seen this movie dozens of times but had to look up the article to remember who Chi-Chi was. Article is mainly plot summary. But no SALT, because it's not a hoax article or anything. No redirect either, the only other article that links here is the one on Scarface.Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:58, 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 keep. Wizardman 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Czechs in Omaha, Nebraska

This article is unsuitable for an encyclopedia, fails to meet the relevant notability guideline for Wikipedia content, and violates WP:SNOW. Besides if we have an article for Omaha, we might as well have an article for every major city (i.e. Czechs in San Francisco or Czechs in Tokyo) —Noah¢s (Talk) 21:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because I feel that none of these are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia:

~~Speedy~~ ~~Weak Delete~~ ~~totally NN listcruft. Should've been WP:SNOW~~ Doc Strange (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that 1.) this doesn't meet any speedy criteria, and 2.) it's not a WP:SNOW case either? (Snowball usually refers to AfDs where the consensus is glaringly obvious.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes i am, but I wasn't looking at the article right. I've changed it from Speedy to Weak as I still believe this is somewhat NN. I mean why is the Czech population in Omaha, Nebraska more notable than the Czech population in Fargo, North Dakota or Jamestown, Rhode Island? (as two examples) Doc Strange (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

- - Reply. The notability of Omaha's Czech population is determined by the reliable sources used in the article, and that's what justifies the existence of each of these articles. The basic criteria for the notability of people is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Any citation in these articles that counts towards the notability requirement will meet that criteria. If Czechs in Fargo or Czechs in Jamestown, Rhode Island are equally as notable, let there be articles on those communities of people, as well. • Freechild'sup? 20:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, with that being said, you've swayed me enough to change my vote to Keep due to the source material and citation, making it N. I jumped the gun (for one of very few times) and turns out the article is well written and sourced. Doc Strange (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Notability is proven by reliable sources, and as the article demonstrates, the topic of Czechs in Omaha has been notable enough to warrant a number of reliable citations. If Czechs in San Francisco or Czechs in Tokyo are as notable then those could be great additions to WP, as well. None of the aforementioned articles are listcruft, and I would suggest that Doc Strange look at the articles he's supporting for deletion. • Freechild'sup? 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note. This is the second AfD for Jewish community in Omaha, and I would like to note there is also an article entitled African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska which the nominator did not add to the list. Why not? • Freechild'sup? 22:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska to the list to calm you down. Noah¢s (Talk) 22:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot assume good faith if you are going to be condescending Noahcs. • Freechild'sup? 23:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep all, possible speedy keep even. All of these articles are well sourced and don't seem to be a synthesis of ideas. Nominator is basically inverting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here by pointing out that other stuff does not exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Verifiable by reliable sources --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep all. They are all legit articles. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge - I can understand the motivation to see these articles deleted, but I think the more appropriate action is to merge all of them into one coherent sub-article for Omaha, Nebraska. Upon reviewing each one individually, I find very little reason for separate articles. Omaha was not, nor has it ever been, a balkanized city with distinct neighborhoods where only a single racial group resided; rather it was an integrated city where people of many races resided. Also, there is nothing remarkable about these types of articles; you will find every city in the United States with a diverse citizenry. The US has never been an ethnocentric nation because we simply do not exist as one race, nor have we ever been a single race. I find all forms of balkanization to be distasteful. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply. Oversimplifying the intricate nature of American history, particularly the history of the Midwest, is an atypical response to any substantive discussion of diversity in the U.S. As separate articles on the Omaha communities of Little Italy, Little Bohemia, and the Near North Side clearly demonstrate, the city most certainly did have distinct ethnic communities that were particularly insular, isolated, and/or segregated. Typecasting Midwestern cities as stagnant beds of suburbia is not a fair response to this AfD, nor is your suggestion to merge these articles together. • Freechild'sup? 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note. For all interested, last August User:Storm Rider and I had a substantial dialog related to this topic at Talk:Mexicans in Omaha, Nebraska. • Freechild'sup? 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No way merge. These articles are a testament to why the Unites States is the greatest country (IMO of course) in the history of civilazation. All cultures and ethnicities are allowed to live as they choose. This multi-culturism brings forth the best that all ethinic groups/cultrures have to offer. The fact that cultures and ethnic groups are distinctly different is a cause to celebrate, not to hide under the table. Omaha, today, might look different then then in the 1850's, but there is no denying that all of the aforementioned ethnic groups were seen as distinct communities. And each ethnic group, because of their background and culture, contributed to Omaha in their own way. But I digress. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you certainly have stirred up the pot by attempting to gore a sacred cow; I haven't a clue what those comments have to do with merging articles. I guess if there is a reference for anything, the logic is an article is acceptable. And yes, I had lengthy conversation about the Mexican article with Freechild. As a genealogist I can create these same types of articles for city in the United States where a Federal Census was taken. I just find that to be insignificant data for an encyclopedia. There has been no evidence on any of the articles that the communities were insular and absolute; none! Also, there is very little references for the present as demonstrated by the Greek article's present section. Most of what is written there is OR. Together they would form a much stronger sub-article and provide a better understanding of Omaha than separate. It is just an opinion; if it slays your personal sacred cow then that would be a personal problem. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, from your scan of the information in the articles surely you can see that they aren't as simple as citing Federal Census data; actually, most of them don't at this point. As for the veracity of the rest of the information in the articles, if you see something missing feel free to add it. Your identification of one section in six articles that is weak does not justify merging the articles; rather it shows that more contributions are necessary. As a genealogist I hope that you could see the potential for this type of article on WP. Rather than original research or one's own point of view, these do and other articles that are verifiable could add a new kind of notable article to WP. I would love to read such an article on Italians in New York City or Swedes in Minneapolis; I do agree with Brewcrewer's comment above. After our dialog on the Mexicans in Omaha article I think you're probably not going to change your mind, but this is my try, and now I'll stop. • Freechild'sup? 13:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been skads of books written about the ethnic make-up of cities, but the problem is that the information is simply not notable when taken individually. What is important is when they are taken in context; i.e. they all belong to the city of Omaha; as a whole they make up the city. The groups do not stand alone, but are part of the whole. Breaking them down into their individual parts destroys the basic reason they are important; together they are Omaha, Nebraska. The city does not exist without them and they do not exist without the city. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I admit I was dubious until I actually looked at the articles. Perfectly acceptable stuff, and sourced just fine. No reason to delete. Ford MF (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
keep A good set of articles and a good pattern for more local ethnic history, where most ethnic history actually occurs, where people live. Hmains (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I can't understand why anyone would even think of nominating this encyclopedic article for deletion. Sensiblekid (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete for all. Listcruft can be disguised all you want by writing it in paragraphs and discussing the subjects, but its still just listcruft. Perhaps they could be merged into one list of notable people but I doubt it. Having all these separate articles for ethnicities is just excessive.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Ford MF -20:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs)
Merge into one coherent article about ethnic groups in Omaha. Delete as failing to satisfy WP:N and being an indiscriminate listing. The series of articles may go into too much detail, but at least are referenced and informative. Edison (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification? So the articles are too detailed? And they should be merged into one article for that reason? You apparently suggest while they are informative, they could be more coherent as one meta-sized article - is that right? Note that African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska is already 44 kilobytes long as it stands. Could you clarify the reasoning behind your merger suggestion a little more? • Freechild'sup? 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Selectively merge the content. Edit out the excessively detailed dissertations on when each ethnicity arrived at whose urging, and who from the old country visited them when, the name of the ethnic baker and butcher, the names of individual unremarkable churches of the ethnicity, and the names and street addresses of unremarkable cemetaries. The articles run on to an excessive length with trivial details, beyond what the subject requires. It is just one small city out of all the cities in the world, and this much detail may go beyond what is encyclopedic or reasonable. The world may not need or want such an exhaustive treatise- or collection of treatises- about the ethnic variety in that one town. Edison (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: An overview article like "Czech immigration into the USA" would be better solution - when it gets created the current text could turn into redirect. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge all to a ethinic groups in Omaha article, Keep African-Americans as a separate fork because of length. I have to agree with Storm Rider and Edison here, that those separate articles are too extensive and some of the information are somewhat trivial, also sets a bad presisent. Note that most of the keeps and the deletes both have no valid reason for keeping or deleting the article. Secret ^account 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply: It seems the overarching theme presented in the negative comments posted here, including comments by Secret and Pavel Vozenilek, is that any one given ethnicity in any one given city is not notable enough to warrant an article on WP. However, as I've already pointed out, the basic criteria for the notability of people is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The case of All of the articles included in this AfD meet that basic criteria. The question of the original AfD proposer about whether the articles fit WP:SNOW was answered by TenPoundHammer when they remarked that "Snowball usually refers to AfDs where the consensus is glaringly obvious." All that said, is there really a substantive conversation left to have here, or are we now going to argue the validity of WP guidelines? • Freechild'sup? 21:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: What makes users Secret, Storm Rider or Edison experts on what makes an ethnic group's or city's history trivial? Can somebody actually show me a guideline on what determines the triviality of content on WP? It seems that an encyclopedia that includes biographies on minor characters from twice-removed Star Wars novels has a lot of room for trivial knowledge... • Freechild'sup? 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a good resource for the current trivia on Wikipedia. I admit that I am more of a purist. Wikipedia seems to straddle being an encyclopedia and People's trivia book. I would not support having articles on all the characters of movies, cartoons, etc. To me, they are all trivia and they cater to the tastes of our rather mentally transient society; from an academic perspective I see no value in them whatsoever.

In the context of these articles, the city is what is of most value; breaking the parts down tares the fabric of the whole, making each less than what it was. I think you think that having individual articles somehow aggrandizes each part of the community; I simply reject the premise and I think the whole is greater than the parts. There is not a right or wrong here, just a difference of what is of value and how best to help readers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Storm Rider - its useful to know where you're coming from. I don't agree with it, but its useful to know. Encyclopedia are inherently about minutiae; that's the nature of knowledge distribution, that what one person finds particularly valuable the next finds completely inane. WP represents the best and worst of that. In the case of these particular articles, they are the beginning of what may become a grand ethnography project, and for that reason alone I think they add great value to WP as a whole - but of course I'm biased here. • Freechild'sup? 00:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jon513 (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oonkie

Seems to be a hoax or WP:NFT, also unreferenced. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 21:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious hoax. Peru exports? ;-) Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete G1 as blatant nonsense, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete WP:NONSENSE Doc Strange (talk) 21:55, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dordle

I added a prod tag, but the creator removed it. This does not appear to be a term recognized by any body of importance. Google does not show that this is a term used by anyone (in the context described here) other than the one person linked to from this page. Is not notable, and has no verified, reliable sources. I (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

delete agree with nom. --neonwhite user page talk 21:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No notability beyond what is on this site. Neon White just deleted the one other reference I could find to "dordle", that being on the dubious Good Magazine (where one had to search for "dordle", the given link was the main page), which merely quotes an award that Nik Daum got - and doesn't even mention a dordle. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I checked the link and could find no mention of the term so i assumed the ref was uncorrect, i was unaware a search might reveal a mention and did not perform one. Regardless, linking to a broad website is not consistant with policy on external links. --neonwhite user page talk 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete appears to be a non-notable neologism, delete per WP:NEO. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ford MF (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Dordles have been published in the following magazines: GOOD Magazine, Nov/December 2007, Issue 007, pg. 116; Empty Magazine, Issue 10, pgs. 102-103. There is no reference on their sites, except as artist credits for the noted issues. Photo proof of publication can be found on the artist's blog at [8] and [9] Menudomucho (talk) 01:06, 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. Spebi 10:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popkin

I originally nominated this for speedy per a1, but that was removed (and after looking at the article again I agree with the removal of the speedy tag), but it still should be deleted as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also the term fails WP:N as the only reference I could find was an urban dictionary definition. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

delete agree with nom, it is a slang term and not encyclopedic. move to wiktionary if better sources can be found. Or redirect to The Dark Tower glossary#Popkin as that is the only mention of it to be found. --neonwhite user page talk 21:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Only references to this particular definition of popkin (ie: not a name) that I could find via Google are, among others, SlangSite, a blog called The Daily Bitch, and the aforementioned UD entry. Clearly it is a relatively obscure slang term, a repository for which Wikipedia is not. Barring that, I can't imagine any logical expansion of the article as it stands. It deserves perhaps a passing mention in Sandwich.-Thatotherguy21 (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - the term was used in the Stephen King "Dark Tower" series (Book II) . I do not believe this adds much to notability; I'm just giving one more place where I've seen it. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to sandwich toaster.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to sandwich and give passing mention there. Ford MF (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete I just tagged this article it has no links to other articles. This article is not encyclopedic. Have also orphaned the article. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:54, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore Chester

This actor does not appear to meet the notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel that Theo has played roles in enough high-quality BBC dramas to allow him to be recognised by wikipedia. I also believe that he is to appear in a film next year, which he is currently filming for. I will add this to the page this evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kington91 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - sorry, it's a well-written article, but he can't really claim "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" as WP:BIO requires. JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete. As stated by JohnCD, Wikipedia biography guidelines state that actors should have significant roles in notable films. Clearly, these are subjective terms, and I'm sure an argument could be made that his Peter Pan role met both these criteria. I, for one, do not think so. However, when combined with the non-verifiability of the article, I feel this should be deleted. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
'Do Not Delete'. άI feel that this article is very well written, and that Theo's performance in Peter Pan is notable enough to meet Wikipedia's criteria. Therefore it should not be deleted. — Whevertrever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Non-notable. Filmography mostly consists of roles as "extra" or "unnamed friend of _____" in non-notable productions (the links mostly go to productions that are NOT the ones in which Chester performed). Ford MF (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
~~Strong~~ Delete. Non-notable per WP:Notability and WP:Notability_(people). Also seems to fail WP:COI. ~~Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)~~ Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

An argument used is that Theo has performed in non-notable performances, as they have not been linked to... However, plays such as Death of a Salesman, and Oh! What a Lovely War, are notable enough that they have been performed thousands, if not more times, in many places... If there were articles covering every single performance of the above plays, I think they would not be considered notable... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.73.160 (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- That Death of a Salesman is notable is not in question, but just because the play is notable, does not mean that every actor who has ever had a small part in any production of the play is notable. I was in my high school production of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't make me notable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - just went through the page and removed everything that wasn't sourced per BLP. Basically, it now says he appeared as Slightly in Peter Pan, from the IMDB. If/when he appears in Half-Blood Prince, then he might scrape notability. Depends on how much screen time he gets I suppose. Google with his name and birth year turns up the IMDB, a couple fora, wikipedia, and a couple other misc. sites with no real content. WLU (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: speedy. Someones given the article a little tidy, it was a tip before! It needs sourcing etc, I will tag for sources. Computerjoe 's talk 21:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dixons City Academy

No doubt notable (IMO any city academy would be due to the political importance) but article is complete mess and needs to be deleted Computerjoe 's talk 20:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I believe schools at this level are generally considered notable. There's hardly anything in the article to constitute a 'complete mess'. I've tagged it as a stub.--Michig (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Afd is not the place to put articles in need of cleanup as the nominator stated this academy is no doubt notable, as such it should be kept. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, AfD is not cleanup. Nominator even admits that the subject is "no doubt notable". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Subject has lots of precedent for being notable. Article has been stubbified by Michig. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Verifiable by reliable sources. Improve, not remove. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per everybody. Just needs a cleanup. Ford MF (talk) 01:11, 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 wasDelete JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Lantern Corps

A yet to be published fictional group whose members, notariaty and standing significance have yet to be established. Delete per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Keep. This is going to be an important storyline and while this article started out poorly it is getting progessively better. We should simply overhaul the article and get rid of anything contentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.191.183 (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This entire article is based on one brief interview, using vague predictions, with no real verifiability. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment We know this group exists, so deleting the article would be a fools errand as we would only have to re-create it. Why not simply gather more information over the coming month, then check through the article line by line for any innacuracy, and alter or delete any information when we know more? Wordforge (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Response: Deleting this article is not a "fool's errand". If you would like to gather more information and save it to your personal blog or hard drive, by all means do so. When/if this subject becomes current and notable, feel free to recreate the article by a simple cut/paste. I would recommend a lot of cleanup - there are too many trivial sections, a strange trivia section with one pseudo-trivia bit in it, and would obviously need more references. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Response: I apologise if that sounded disrespecful, I merely mean that wikipedia has a lot of articles about (for example) movies that have not yet been released, and they are not deleted simply because they haven't been shown yet. True? That's why we have the warning:

The caveat on the article reads "This article or section contains information about a scheduled or expected comic book release, or a series already in progress. It is likely to contain tentative information and the content may change dramatically as the product release approaches and more information becomes available."

I and other Green Lantern fans will be constantly be updating this page to show more references, more proofs and more information as it comes out. Regards, Wordforge (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-response: No apology needed, I didn't mean to chastise. I personally think Wiki policy is pretty clear on this - see WP:NFF for a rebuttal to your film argument, and this is the applicable part of WP:NOTE:

Defining notability for fiction:

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For articles about fictional concepts, reliable secondary sources cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is real-world content. Based on this reasoning and the above excerpts, fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources.

As you can see, this article crosses over the line of multiple Wiki guidelines. It is speculation of a future fictional work, sourced from one interview that can neither be considered substantial nor reliable. The article itself does not address real-world development, it merely offers a fictional plot summary of what might be written in the future. I was serious before; copy this article and use it as a place to start when the subject becomes a "real" creation. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'm super excited about the Black Lanterns, but this is a clear case of crystal balling. I think the event doesn't happen until 2009 or something? Which means all this article is going to be for the next two years is a magnet for speculation and rumor. It can be recreated when actual information is available. Ford MF (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The comic is coming out in 2009. It's 2008 tommorow. So it won't be a two-year wait. Wordforge (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's summer 2009, so let's split the difference and say a year and a half. Ford MF (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: WP:NFF

"Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material."

Since this comic series has been advertised, and I have just posted a link to a Newsarama article with one of the co-creators that verifies at least some aspects of this, I would still reccomend we stay our hand on this, although I will take your advice and copy and paste this into a word doc in case it is deleted. Enjoy your new years guys. Wordforge (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep- the article seems to be improving, and even if there isn't much now in terms of sources, I'd imagine more would be available in the foreseeable future. Am I making any sense? Anyway, my vote is for keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

note:- this article is not about a series, nor is about a specific storyline. It is about a fictional group which has yet to appear, and will not for another year and half. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Delete as crystal balling fan-cruft. Maybe there's an article here for Spring 2009, when the arc is supposed to be close to being published... maybe. But definitely not now. - J Greb (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: A good portion of this article was original research and completely made-up garbage by Wordforge. ("Dark Lantern Corpse"? "Dark Guardians"? "Resembles" Ysmault?) I've since cleaned it up, but I don't see why this warrants an article now. 69.23.135.79 (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete It's kinda premature to make a seperate article about them. There probably won't be enough to make a half decent article until at least 2009.--Marhawkman (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly remove the original research, remove the speculation, but this is a credible search term, so maybe we need to look at a relevant place to merge the sourced info to and leave behind a redirect. Green Lantern Corps? Hiding T 23:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment given what we've got... Power ring (weapon)#Other colored rings where the gist information is already. - J Greb (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Would that be the best redirect target then? Hiding T 13:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I just checked, and yeah, it looks to me like we can either merge and redirect to Power ring (weapon)#Other colored rings or delete and then recreate as a redirect to Power ring (weapon)#Other colored rings given that the edit history of the article in question is pretty much of one user who has also added the verifiable information to Power ring (weapon)#Other colored rings. I think WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR are the relevant policies here. Hiding T 14:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion appears to be over, can we kill it now?--Marhawkman (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Keep!" I understand all of the points made, as well as the comment about "crystal balling." However, as long as we keep a close watch on the material being properly referenced, instead of speculation, I think it should stay. Part of the enjoyment is trying to piece together the clues before the storyline comes together. In the Green Lantern universe, one needs only to look at the cross-references between the Alan Moore-based "prophecy" and the upcoming stated storylines by Geoff Johns to see Wiki users sharing information from 20 years ago to now and making connections. Let this continue through 2009, and if the page can't be salvaged (merged or kept), then consider deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmathews (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

--At present, most, if not all, of the information is duplicative and copied from the article on DC Power Rings. If it's later warranted to have the article, it can simply be recreated by unmerging it.--Marhawkman (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

- Stop at "Part of the enjoyment is trying to piece together the clues before the storyline comes together." That's fodder for a fan site or forum, not an encyclopedia. As a story arc we've little more than "Summer 2009" for that. As a story element there's even less, and what is there belongs in other articles. Putting those bit into a single article is either a collection of random story snippets or, worse, rampant speculation. - J Greb (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Completely agree with J Greb. Wikipedia doesn't piece together clues, we don't do original research. Hiding T 15:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasKeep Interested editors may merge/redirect as they see fit. Looks like it will be no small task, and not one for somebody unfamiliar with the subject matter. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caregiver (comics)

WP:FICT Minor component of fictional work John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Minor comic character, not notable per WP:FICT. Suggest using Wikia's Marvel Comics database instead. --John Nagle (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a new place for this kind of material: Wikipedia Annex. The procedures are new, but there's a system in place for moving minor fictional material out of Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But the mission statement says that it's for articles on fictional works that are "too detailed for Wikipedia". Isn't that rather the reverse of being a home for minor fictional characters? And isn't it more of a holding area than an actual home for the article?SteveG (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think about moving this sort of thing to Wikia. On the one hand, Wikia actually collects this stuff, while it's not really "encyclopedic" under Wikipedia rules. On the other hand, there are legal conflict of interest problems in recommending on non-profit Wikipedia that content be moved to the profit-making Wikia, because many of the same people are involved with both organizations. That policy issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your COI concern. --Jack Merridew 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

nb: that the Wikia annex, not the Wikipedia annex. --Jack Merridew 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

merge & redirect - though a minor character, she could be utilized as part of a members list in the Elder Gods page. The seems to be a modest to moderate amount of info on this character, I which could strenthen the article of the Elders. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Keep or merge - Meets the standards of notability set by hundreds of other comic book characters that have been given a Wiki page. If some generic supervillain that only appeared once or twice in a comic series from twenty or thirty years ago is notable, how is it that the Caregiver, who fills a unique role in the Marvel Universe, is somehow less notable? Why target Caregiver for deletion, but not, for example, the Locksmith or Megatak--or, for that matter, other obscure Elders of the Universe such as Trader, Astronomer, or Obliterator? OTOH, the current Elders of the Universe page is a mess and it may be a good idea to provide sub-entries therein for each Elder. --SteveG (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- While I'm not crazy about the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS logic, I do think it's important to stress that Caregiver does in fact fulfill the same requirements that 98% of the other comic-book related articles on Wikipedia fulfill: she's had multiple appearances in multiple titles. And no one's really come forward with a decisive statement of why this character, in particular, is too minor to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Ford MF (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, if there's a set standard for establishing a comic book character's notability, I'd like to know what it is. If there isn't, then one is left to infer a standard set by the thousands of articles for comics characters out there. The fact is, few of them have been analyzed in The New York Times. Primary references to appearances and the occasional secondary reference to a Marvel.com page are about as good as we're likely to get. --SteveG (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly notable as far as Marvel comics characters go. Ford MF (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge or Keep for now but it will be a lot of work for someone. The Elder's article doesn't lend itself to just adding this. I'd suggest that that a list of "minor" Elder's should be created. See if the original editors are willing to do that (thus the keep for now) Hobit (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, deleting stubs deprives us of material for a main article. As it is, the Elders with stubs could be mereged, and the major Elders could have links to their main articles. --SteveG (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

delete as non-notable. More circular references back to primary sources; no secondary sources. --Jack Merridew 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So, what's a suitable secondary source for a comic book character? --SteveG (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically? How about a character analysis in The New York Times? --Jack Merridew 12:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So basically there should be Wikipedia articles about Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, and that's it? Ford MF (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not hypothetically; practically. Think link to marvunapp doesn't qualify? --SteveG (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect into Elders of the Universe. BOZ (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect into Elders of the Universe per BOZ. Hiding T 18:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jupiter Station

No reliable sources, no assertion of real-world notability, entirely in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

keep - Is referenced quite a bit in various Star Trek episodes (esp. Voyager), more "notable" then other fictional places in Wikipedia, eg: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Jupiter+Station&word2=Adjikistan 99.247.120.178 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article for this WP:OTHERSTUFF comparison was deleted! Your invalid argument is now even more invalid. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Suitable for Star Trek Wiki, but not this one. No real-world notability and, last time I checked, this was a real-world wiki! Whitstable (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, a primarily or exclusively off-screen, character-background location, as such better suited for Memory Alpha/Beta. Fails WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Could redirect it to Lewis Zimmerman, but I can't see a strong case for keeping this one. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Other than the fact he lives there, Lewis Zimmerman and Jupiter Station have no relevance to each other. That would be like redirecting Liverpool to The Beatles. Could redirect to Starbase or even merge with it. Think outside the box 14:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. In-universe only content. Doubtful secondary sources exist. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep as it is sourced article concerning a space station in a notable franchise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't have reliable sources, and it does not inherit requisite notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as lacking any evidencing of notability from reliable sources. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete (with possible merge to an appropriate "lits of places" article if necessary). Clearly a perma-stub about a location in a fictional universe, with no available reliable sources, no notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon

Non-notable neologism with no sources, with a bit of original research as a topping. — Coren ^(talk) 20:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. All right, we'll do it your way with discussion and all. Zero notability (just because the creator is notable doesn't mean this is), smacks of fancruft. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep provided it is improved: It does get a lot of Google hits (although mostly blogs) and it is sourced back as far as RA Wilson. It is mentioned in the article on Novelty theory. Of course, it is exactly the type of specious nonsense that we kick out of Wikipedia every day with a casual "db-nonsense", but I fear that it is notable nonsense and we may be stuck with it. What we do have a right to expect is an article that explains it better, without any OR, and some better references. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete per a mixture of both of your arguments. If improved with more reliable sources that are independent of the subject I'll change my mind.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep per DanielRigal. Ford MF (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Part of a comedy routine. Not an actual attempt at a serious measurement of anything; something off the top of some guy's head. Individual comedy routines do not rate separate articles. Herostratus (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable enough to merit its own article, and all sourced content could be merged into Robert Anton Wilson's article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget . 12:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts: If we keep the article then I think the graph should go as that is sort of OR. If we delete the article then the content could be moved into Robert Anton Wilson. I still think it is a weak keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia has no deadline. Articles with no consensus should be closed as such not relisted immediately. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete – At best merge into the author’s page. Could find no information on Google Scholar where you would expect a book of this type to get some credit and no hits on Google News where I was hoping to get at least one or two reviews. Regarding a general search on Google plenty of hits but all blogs, Wikipedia mirror sites and such which are not creditable or verifiable by my standards. Shoessss | Chat 14:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Note to Rudget... you can do several things. Keep. Delete. Merge. Redirect. No consensus. Don't worry about what people think about your decision. Mandsford (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Shoessss. STORMTRACKER 94 15:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per Shoessss. Fails WP:N. I found nothing from a reliable source in Google, Google News, Google News Archives. Noroton (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS EJF (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete A non-notable comic theory Mostlyharmless (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per arguments above. "The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon"? Daing but that would be a great name for a band... Grutness...wha? 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trailer Trash (movie)

Does not meet WP:MOVIE since not in production; doesn't meet Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Plenty of time for this article IF the film ever comes together. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment My PROD tag removed, no problem there, but nominated for the reasons cited above. If for some reason this entry survives AfD, it should be moved to Trailer Trash (film) to meet Wikipedia standard nomenclature. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Eli Roth has confirmed that he'll begin shooting. There's no chance that he'll drop the project since he already confirmed. Chris872 (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

He even confirmed the release date. Just check the resources. Chris872 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just check WP:MOVIE (more precisely, WP:NFF) for the relevant policy. This would only currently be appropriate as a paragraph within Trailer (film). Accounting4Taste:talk 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, putting it as a paragraph within that article sounds good. Chris872 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)'

Why was it removed from the Trailer article? Chris872 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Clear deviation of WP:NFF. Merge with larger related article or toss altogether. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ford MF (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I DID MERGE IT! WTF? Chris872 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. You merged it. Now we just have to delete the original article. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It appears Chris872 never actually merged it. Wizardman 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Pomte 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Porkchop plot

Created 2-1/2 years ago, this stub has received only administrative edits since that time. It also comes up at the top of a google search, which says to me that there's almost nothing else written about it of any consequence. Essentially a dictdef of a techno-jargon term with very limited scope. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete It could potentially be notable as more information comes out. However, as the current information stands, all that "porkchop plots" merit is a mention in trajectories or orbit.-Thatotherguy21 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Strewth! It's notable now, as reading beyond the top of that Google Web search, and seeing all of the people documenting pork chop plots, creating MATLAB scripts for them, and lecturing about them in universities would have revealed. You can find pork chop plots discussed in books about interplanetary mission planning, such as ISBN 0792371488, and its clear from reading just the NASA article linked-to by the article alone that there's more to say about pork chop plots and the mathematics behind them, into which this stub can clearly be expanded or refactored over time. And there is no deadline for doing so. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, we don't delete stubs just because they haven't been expanded yet, whether that period be 2.5 years or otherwise. Wikipedia is not finished. After all, we don't even have an an article on Lambert's theorem, which is the basis for these plots, yet. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. Those Google hits look promising.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep With additional details, sources and an image, the Wikipedia:Notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Upgrading vote to reflect additional details and context added by User:Dhartung. As it currently stands, the article explains what the term means and real-world applications and relevance for its use. Alansohn (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, I've added a bit more. The plot seems to me of minor notability but high visual interest and a hook into orbital mechanics for laymen, so it's worth keeping even if it isn't central itself. --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Recent edits make the article much more worthwhile than it was for the 2.5 years. (The sentiments about "Wikipedia is not finished" might also apply, but it is a moot point now). Kingdon (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Even though it sounds like a neologism, the term seems to be well-established in the space exploration community. If someone wrote an article on Lambert's theorem, I'd support merging this one into it, but the material needs to be kept. Cosmo0 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Not sure why this article was even nominated; the NASA reference alone, as Uncle G stated, pretty much establishes notability. References check out, a Google search reveals several significant, reliable hits - stubbify and keep. Tanthalas39 (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spebi 10:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Armless

Unverified, original research. No way of confirming this information. —Viriditas | Talk 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I could find nothing to confirm this, and even if we could confirm the details in the article, the album hasn't been released yet, and may not be notable once it has been, Hamilton not being a notable artist.--Michig (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It's hoax vandalism. The original versions of the article had all of the hallmarks of a particular vandal who likes to add false information about forthcoming albums by various people, as have most of the later edits (although there are reasons that others would also employ this pattern). A quick check of Hamilton's own web site reveals no albums at all, and she'd certainly be the first to know. It almost goes without saying that there's nothing anywhere else about this, either. Don't forget to zap Category:Bethany Hamilton albums as well. Delete.
By the way, various items in the visible and deleted contributions histories lead me to believe that 67.181.90.145 (talk · contribs), TheRockets (talk · contribs), Bethalbum (talk · contribs), StarsAreBlind (talk · contribs), and Jeffshowofficial (talk · contribs) are all one person. Uncle G (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V alone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G. All it needs is for Yung D to make an appearance, and I'd be certain as well.Kww (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is presumably a joke :-) If it's not then it's not notable anyway. Phantomwiki (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete A tasteless joke. Category:Bethany Hamilton albums should also be deleted. --Popplewick (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Moved to Uncyclopedia. --81.151.95.181 (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spebi 10:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The White Van

Not aired script. Looks like self promotion to me Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Currently the script is being reviewed by the BBC." Doesn't get any more WP:CRYSTAL then this. Delete. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, and what a shameless vanity piece: "The writers posed as characters Terry and Dave and left the interviewer, Frances Finn stunned at their answers"! Non-notable, self-promotional, Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete definitely non-notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:37, 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. Yes, consensus appeared to be merge, but is there anything really to merge? Plus, no section to put it in, no reason to mess up an article as a result. Wizardman 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hannah Montana Doll

Contested prod. While I'm sure these dolls are good sellers, there's nothing notable to say about them beyond the mere fact of their existence -- which isn't really worth more than a brief mention in the main Hannah Montana article. Powers ^T 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete NN toy Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Hannah Montana. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Only logical thing to do :) Computerjoe 's talk 20:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable doll, and there is no purpose in merging; imagine how big the Hannah Montana article would become if we included every product related to the show. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Tony. --Ybbor^Talk 22:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget . 12:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Per above Shoessss | Chat 14:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge How ridiculous to relist this article for a more thorough discussion. Make a decision. Mandsford (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge per above STORMTRACKER 94 15:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spebi 10:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Field Precision

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Field Precision LLC. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

delete non-notable. Article describes services offered by company, not its history or achievements. RJC ^Talk 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No reliable sources establish notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete There aren't any notable sources. This is a clear delete. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs:

This is our second attempt to introduce a page on Field Precision in Wikipedia. Our motivation was that all our competitors have pages that are linked from lists of FEA and CEA software companies within Wikipedia. We based the form and material of our entry on the page for Ansoft, which has been on Wikipedia for several years. Our intent was to keep the page as short as possible, emphasizing free resources for education.

We can certainly expand the page to include descriptions of the unique technical achievements of our company and the extensive applications by organizations around the world with links to publications. This would involve some effort and it would be disheartening if we were simply deleted at the end of the process. Would you please give us some guidance?

Sincerely, Stan Humphries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.12.187 (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC) — 68.35.12.187 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Wikipedia is Not for Self-promotion, Advertising or advocacy of any kind. You appeasr to have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.--Hu12 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although users are certainly free to discuss merge. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uka Uka

Unnotable video game character with no real-world significance. Article is almost entirely game plot regurgitation, Original research "supported" by a glut of game quotes. Tagged as such and suggested merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Tagging was labeled vandalism. On closer inspect, the list of character covers this one adequately enough, so merge is probably not needed anyway. Collectonian (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable character. Plot summary is way to long, the sections that refer to character development are unsourced. All sources used are primary sources. I doubt there are any reliables 3rd party sources to sources this article. Ridernyc (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He is not "non-notable", never has been and never will be. He easily fulfills the criteria set-out. Plus you're insisting we delete something a simple edit would fix. CBFan (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

if it can be fixed with a simple edit stop fighting with everyone and fix it. Ridernyc (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We did that, and Collectonian blatantly deleted it. Realisticly, if you want to delete Uka Uka's article so badly, then you'd have to delete EVERYONE else's articles except Crash's and possibly Cortex's, because otherwise it promotes biasey. And don't say that, it's uncivil and not very professional. CBFan (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a diff to backup your unfounded accusation that I deleted your attempts to provide REAL-WORLD notability. Collectonian (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I will, ONCE you post proof of REAL-WORLD notability for any OTHER fictional character. You're clearly being biased. CBFan (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said, CBFan. Collectonian, darling, no offence but do you have some sort of pathological grudge against fictional characters who have not been heard of by every human being on the face of the planet? Saying that Uka Uka is a non-notable fictional character is preposterous, he's a major antagonist from a well-known and successful game series which has had quite a bit of merchandise. There is no original research because all the statements in the article are backed up with quotes from the game series to support them. There are references, citations and external links and all the allusions made to Uka Uka's personality are drawn from a variety of information provided by the games themselves and the production notes. None of this is original research at all. Furthermore the references to the plot all describe Uka Uka's role in the games and his effect on the storyline. It also contains a short section on his character's creation and a long and very interesting section on his personality. If you're going to delete the article on Uka Uka you might as well delete Ganon as well. Not that that would be such a bad thing. --Illustrious One (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment It should be noted that CBFan has canvassed other users to "save" this article, including: User talk:Freqrexy, User talk:Illustrious One‎, and User talk:Cat's Tuxedo‎. Collectonian (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that I never did anything of the sort, and that Collectonian is telling lies about me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBFan (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He most certainly is not. You are canvassing, which is inappropriate. In addition removing others' comments is extremely inappropriate. I suggest you desist. I (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And you are beating a dead horse, because we've already made a compromise. CBFan (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. As the nominator, I still stand by this AfD, and I stand by my ANI report of your behavior in this whole affair. My recent edits on the remaining articles is simply finishing the plan I had started before this mess started, per your implication that you would not block it, and an attempt to do what was unable to be done here. Collectonian (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And, as I told you, I am no longer interested in continuing this silly affair now that we've made a compromise. I'm now for merging, not keeping. CBFan (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Collectonian (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any secondary sources that establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). If this character has real-world notability, could you please provide evidence of such? The article needs more out-of-universe information—it currently has only two paragraphs of real-world content at a glance, and even this is filled with unsourced speculation ("It is thereby possible that Uka Uka's (and Aku Aku's) voice is computer-generated") and generic text that fluffs up the paragraph, such as "a number of different concept designs were conceived...before the final design was decided on", which could be said about any video game character, really. Problems like this are typically associated with non-notable characters, which I suspect this might be. Pagra shtak 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to provide proof, not only as to why you want only Uka Uka deleted, but also as to why you don't want every fictional character who has an article deleted. Uka Uka is a video game character. He is not a real character. He exists in a video game universe. You have a very poor argument on your behalf, which, as far as I can make out, is "He is a video game character so he can't have an article". And, as I've said before, and as many Crash fans will agree with, Uka Uka has appeared in 10 games, 4 of which were canon, so he is easily notable. CBFan (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, did I ever say I want the article deleted? Please don't put words in my mouth, it's incredibly rude. Secondly, the burden of proof lies in the other direction—it falls upon the supporters of the article to prove notability. All I did was ask for someone to provide evidence of notability, as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), but I have yet to see it. That the character has been in 10 games does not show notability, as the games are not secondary sources. Pagra shtak 20:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a simple case of mistaken identity, there's no need to flip. Besides, we've reached a workable agreement. CBFan (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge for the above reasons. Pagra shtak 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge - Compromise already sussed out between myself and Collectionian, there is no longer any need for this as far as I'm concerned. CBFan
For God's sake, what are you nutters on? This is a brilliant article about a notable character from a notable computer game and you've got it in for him. If you're going to delete the Uka Uka article you're going to have to delete the Crash article, the Cortex article, the Coco article and all those other Crash Bandicoot articles. It would be the most ridiculous genodice since all the Fictional villains categories were deleted. --Illustrious One (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That is why we're merging them. Not Crash's article...his is staying. And before anyon says anything, I didn't even tell him anything concerning that one. CBFan (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But I think most people would agree that this article doesn't deserve to be merged. Uka Uka warrents an article of his own. --Illustrious One (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I thought it was already compromised several weeks ago that only various notable characters would end up getting articles. With Uka Uka appearing in four canon games and 6 spin-offs, that warrants more than enough information to build an article based on him when matched up to other characters. But if a merge has to happen, then that means another line would have to be drawn concerning which Crash characters would have their own articles and which would not. Freqrexy (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I believe there is enough real world information available to satisfy the relevant guidelines (WP:FICT, WP:GAMECRUFT). User:Krator (t c) 16:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The motion is passed. Keep. --Illustrious One (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

no it hasn't. I don't see a clear consensus here; therefore, please allow this discussion to remain open so consensus may be reached. Terraxos (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I jumped to concusions. --Illustrious One (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, though, I personally support a Keep. Terraxos (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, consensus seems to be towards merge and not keep. Pagra shtak 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment What about X? Thin boy 00 @988, i.e. 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete or transwiki, This is a canonical example of gamecruft which would be an excellent featured article on a dedicated CB wiki but which has no place here. Defenders aren't covering themselves in glory by acting like five-year-olds while defending it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd agree with the Illustrious One that this boarders on a personal attack. I agree that some of those arguing for keep aren't on the best of behavior, but grouping all "defenders" as "five-year-olds" is a rather broad brush. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham, kindly refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. --Illustrious One (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I am relisting this, as the original listing has somehow been deleted from the December 27 log. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Now if there's one game that I haven't played in a long time, it's Crash Bandicoot 3. Jeez. Brings back memories.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Partial merge as above; there's some nice out-of-universe information here (voice actors, sketches, etc) but I would strip most of the in-game stuff; the Characteristics section, In-game history etc, as we are an encyclopedia and not a gaming wiki. There's not enough notability presented to warrant its own article - and by notability I mean the usual "independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage." Marasmusine (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support Marasmusine's solution, if not past experience showed me that it is usually just a small plot summary that is merged, while all the nice out-of-universe information is left out or put together in a "out of universe information" section at the top of the list article. The theory behind merges is that sometimes information is better presented in a large article (note my mergism userbox). I don't think that is the case here: the information on Uka Uka (which we all agree has some place in Wikipedia) is better presented in its own article. User:Krator (t c) 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon reflection I agree. --Illustrious One (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Appears to be a major character in a major series. Further the article is really quite strong, I'd hate to see it go. Any merge involves a LOT of material. Also, as a bit of trivia, 14,500 ghits on an English-only search... Hobit (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't address the concerns of the nominator—namely the lack of real-world notability and over-reliance on plot repetition. Pagra shtak 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, a major character from a major series is notable. On the plot, I'm not too worried, WP:PLOT's major task is insuring that we don't end up with Readers Digest summaries here (see WP:PLOT talk page). I don't think this is that or anything close to it. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. It is not sufficient to say "major character from a major series". You must show why this particular character is notable in the real world—not within the game series—and back it up with reliable secondary sources. If the character is indeed notable, this should be an easy task. Pagra shtak 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. If the base article is too long, spilling out makes sense. It's the base article that matters for notability, the rest is just organization. WP:NOTPAPER

WP:NOTPAPER is not a catch-all to add fancruft. There's a CB wiki on Wikia which would be a thousand times better to develop this articl on than WP is. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see latest draft of WP:FICT (in talk). General view is that spilling out can make sense if it helps the article. While not binding (hey, WP:FICT isn't either) it shows the direction of consensus. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be added in the series game characters article, not have a article of its own. Ihsbislns (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Ihsbislns

Keep. Sufficiently notable. Needs rewriting as per WP:WAF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget . 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Reliable, secondary sources do not appear to exist to establish notability. The article is also mostly WP:NOT#PLOT without real-world context, so there is little content to merge elsewhere. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Aku Aku or delete, not notable on its own. I find it funny over two-thirds of the "references" are from the game. JIP | Talk 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - trivial media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Still stuck trying to kill this boss, eh? There seem to be enough references out there to demonstrate that the world has noticed this character. Google Books, Google News. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - ok, when I searched, the news coverage mostly referred to a notable sailing boat. From your searches, there does appear to be significant news coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - significant media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per significant news coverage and other sources provided by various people above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to ant colony optimization. I have redirected; editors are welcome to merge in any useful information from the history. BLACKKITE 00:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael LaLena

This article seems borderline; there's assertion of notability, but most of the article as is talks about the general field in which the subject works, rather than the subject himself. It's not clear how much of this discussion is his work and how much is background. The sources listed are not AFAICT by or about the subject. He has some academic publications and a couple of citations in other people's (see Talk page for Google Scholar links), but no more there than one would expect from any academic. Perhaps the article might be better merged with ant colony optimization or similar? Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge into ant colony optimization, per nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge as above. This is not an article about Michael Lalena. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge, doesn't look like he's quite worth a bio yet.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Update? I could update this page with more biographical data. I specifically disagree with merging into ant colony optimization. That article deals with a specific individual's graph theory approach to solving ant food collection problems, where the lalena approach is Genetic Programming and Swarm Intelligence based - similar to some of John Koza's work, but with the teamwork slant. I believe the contents of this article are too specific to fit well into the Genetic Programming or Swarm Intelligence articles. Should I update the article here? Managedcards (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you personally connected with the subject of this article? I ask because of your username and the face that managedcards.com is registered to a Michael Lalena [10]. Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge per nom. This is not a biography, and it is not clear that notability has been established for a real biography. Tim Ross·^talk 15:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge into ant colony optimization, which the article is really about. Stand alone notability of Michael LaLena himself is not demonstrated. Michael is merely the author of the sole external link. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 19:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gia Farrell (album)

Delete per "There isn't much known about the album" and WP:V. Blatant crystalballery and mostly unreferenced. Even the artist's own MySpace page (cited) contains very little concrete information. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete, contains no easily verifiable information. Take away the MySpace-cited stuff and there's almost nothing at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete but with no prejudice against a sourced recreation in the future.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Kww (talk) 03:03, 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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of EU countries by natural gas production

There's no intrinsic link between being a natural gas producer and an EU member, and we already have the perfectly serviceable List of countries by natural gas production. Biruitorul (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I've added the map to the global list article, as that's potentially useful, but I don't see any reason for a standalone EU list. Tevildo (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Verifiable by reliable sources --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Totally encyclopedic information. It's also WP:INTERESTING that the UK and the Netherlands each produce over 4 times as much as the next most productive country, Germany.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

CommentI find it slightly ironic that you wikilinked the argument you made to its entry on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The information is indeed encyclopedic and interesting. It is also reproduced, in complete detail, at List of countries by natural gas production. The proposal isn't to delete the information, just this one redundant article. Tevildo (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Precisely, and now the EU map, for those who really want it, is in the World list, so the keep rationale seems weak indeed. Biruitorul (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Listcruft that is already covered in a more comprehensive list. Notability is not an issue here. The actual issue is that it is redundant, and compares two things (membership and production of NG) with no correlation to eachother.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirect - Agree with Oni Ookami Alfador. Redirect to List of countries by natural gas production, not delete. Think outside the box 17:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I am quite suprised by the number for year 2003 and the Czech Republic (216.E6 m3). The 2003 annual report by the only company producing gas here talks about 82.E6 m3 and this is more-less table level over many years. The World Factbook seems to be very much off. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 16:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bluematter.

non notable blog. Choosing123 (talk) 12:54, 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, Phoenix -wiki 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete no substantial coverage makes it unnotable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Sources are trivial, and PageRank is unverifiable. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete no proof of notability. I didn't see anything at Google News or Google News Archives, either. Noroton (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mive

nonnotable website. alexa none rank. Choosing123 (talk) 12:53, 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, Phoenix -wiki 17:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete References are about another site Computerjoe 's talk 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Direct copy of Blackle, with the name replaced. All the sources reference Blackle. Wikipedia seems to be the only incoming link. -- pb30<talk> 20:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per G11. jj137 ^♠ 20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picasion

nonnotable website Choosing123 (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 07:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix -wiki 17:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No reliable sources establish notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:37, 30 December 2007

(UTC)

Speedy Delete as it is so blatantly spam. 1 editor (most likely creator/staff member of the site. Not a lick of notability. Article clearly pushes the website on its readers.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:37, 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 Speedy close, article already has not one, but two PRODs on it (but no AfD tag). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dibble Dabble

Game where "origins are unknown". No references, seems to qualify as WP:MADEUP — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC) — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Please don't bring this here if there's two PRODS on the page. Bring it only if the prods are contested. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but if you check the times you'll see that was all within 3 minutes. Consider this ignored then, I don't know how to handle it. — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 17:34, 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 concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courier (comics)

Fails Notability and Notability (fiction). SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:41, 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, Wizardman 17:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (speak) 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a suitable merge candidate out there, probably Gambit (comics). Deletion is not the answer to the problems raised in the nomination per editing policy. Hiding T 23:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, no real-world information.Kww (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect into Gambit (comics), per Hiding's suggestion. BOZ (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect into Gambit (comics). No sign of existance of independent secondary sources. The authors of this article should be encourged to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lucio Levi

Possibly non-notable professor that was tagged for CSD. I'm taking it here for further commentary. Keilana^talk_(recall) 17:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Professor test — no particular notability as an academic asserted. Note that just over 2 yesrs ago, he was still a PhD candidate.[11] Unlikely that he has amassed a body of work that makes him the expert in his field. — ERcheck (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
comment At that point her had published 2 textbooks, “Programação em Perl” (Programming Perl), Levi Lúcio, Vasco Amaral. First edition in October 2001 by FCA/Lidel, in Portugal., & "Programação em Visual Basic 6" (Programming VB6), Levi Lúcio, Luís Campos, Sandro Vilar. First edition in January 1999 by FCA/Lidel, in Portugal. Presently on the 5th edition. He might be notable as a programmer, though not an academic. DGG (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indophobia

See debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pakistanphobia. These definitions have no existance outside of wikipedia. To state that national and communal chauvinism in Pakistan and Bangladesh (or Sri Lanka, Nepal) and discrimination and racism against Indian immigrants in the West is grossly OR. Rather on contrary, the discrimination directed against Indian immigrants in the US & UK is equally directed to Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants (indeed, one of the most common slurs against UK Indians is 'paki'). Soman (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Search for Indophobia--one hit, Wikipedia. Blueboy 96 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong and Speedy Keep The term Indophobia was coined by American Indologist Thomas Trautmann [12][13]. Google books shows 77 hits [14]. term is used by academics such as here [15] and here [16]. This is definitely a long-used term in academia. There are many parts of the article that are OR, but the term itself is notable in the context of scholarly discourse, and a cleanup is required, that is all.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Update: I have added some more material regarding Indophobia using references from academic journals that use this term. Please review your decision(s) based on this version[17].Ghanadar galpa (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This is an inherent wealth in the English language, namely the ability to create new terms. 'Indophobia' is a term that explains itself, but could fit in wiktionary. That said, still there is no connection between say Kipling's colonial rantings, Nepalese foreign policy, Idi Amin or name-calling in English schools. --Soman (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

But the term is used in both cases by scholars. There is no connection between Islam and antisemitism and Christianity and antisemitism either, yet the term is used to denote both prejudices. No connection between the Indophobia as described by Trautmann and that touted by Amin is implied in the article. The only thing that is being noted are valid uses of the term to denote anti-Indian prejudices. So long as the term is used multiple times by scholars, it satisfies the requirements of WP:Notability and is not a WP:NEO Neologism (which is a cultural term, not an academic one).Ghanadar galpa (talk)

Comment: WP:OTHERCRAP. I would vote delete for both of those articles. --Soman (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they are crap. I am saying that they are valid articles, both of them, and a majority of wikipedians clearly agree. The same reasons that validate those articles validate this one. The reasons being the numerous academics and scholars who have applied the term(s) antisemitism and Indophobia in their respective contexts. One may delete an article on a term on the grounds that it is a neologism and deletionism applies, or that it is not notable. I have demonstrated that neither argument applies here.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the foo and antisemitism articles is that they reduce antisemtism to just any sort of anti-jewish posture in general. Antisemitism is not merely prejudice against Jews, it emerged as a largely self-conscious political tendency, which produced its own political discourse. Antisemites in Russia, Germany, Poland, etc. shared a common discourse, which both persisted and developed over time. Now, what is the connection between Idi Amin, stereotypes of Indians in the West and Bangladeshi Islamists? --Soman (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Care to put up those articles for AfD as well? Money where your mouth is and all that.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(OFFTOPIC for this particular afd)Well, I chose myself when to put proposals for xfd:s myself. The Islam and antisemitism already passed an afd a year ago. I think that those examples are an issue that perhaps should be tackled at a higher level than an afd, requesting a manual of style banning 'x and y' comparison articles altogether.(/OFFTOPIC) That said, feel free to respond to my question, as opposed to responding with a macho challenge. --Soman (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You say "Antisemitism is not merely prejudice against Jews, it emerged as a largely self-conscious political tendency, which produced its own political discourse". This is correct. if you read Trautmann's reference cited in the article ie "Aryans and British India", he clearly makes the exact same case for 19th century British Indologists, that it was a self-conscious tendency which produced it's own political discourse. Plus, the Africa refs clearly show the same biases being touted by British colonialists on Indian diaspora in Africa, cultivating such views among the indigenous people's of the region. Liek I said. Would you care to read the cited refs? Some of them are JSTOR papers and, if you cannot access them, I can give them to you.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, colonial authorities of the British Empire had an active cadres of producers of thought for promoting the self-righteousness of the British and denigrating the colonized peoples. This is definately a fact, both regarding India and other colonies. I cannot access JSTOR at the computer i'm using at the moment, but I can go through the texts tomorrow. However, from the way its presented in the article, I do not see link between the 19th century indologist section and the africa section. On the contrary, the prejudices presented appears to be rather different. Please elaborate how you see this. --Soman (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How about Anti-Arabism and Sinophobia? Are those crap too?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstand on what WP:OTHERCRAP actually means here. Refering to OTHERCRAP does not imply that any article is, literally, crap. It works in both ways, and gives examples both of flawed arguments for keep votes ('There's an article on x, and that's just as famous as this') as well as delete votes ('We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this.') As per these two cases, both suffer to a large degree of the same problems as this article, but with some differences. Anti-arabism does exist in western contemporary thought, clearly interlinked with Islamophobia, and in popular culture, political discourse on war on terror, etc., one can see and study links between say racial stereotyping of Arabs in Hollywood movies and Western military support to Israel. Some of the 'cultural resistance' against Arab culture, as expressed in some Christian rightwing tendencies in Lebanon and amongst Kurdish nationalists, although that is more vague. However, i'd prune all the iran, niger, etc., passages. As per Sinophobia, I'd prefer a move rather than a delete. Anti-Chinese chauvinism is a notable phenomenon in South East and has a prolonged history there, and is in many ways analogous to European antisemitism. However, I cannot see any links between that phenomon and racial stereotyping of Chinese people in the West. --Soman (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of Sinophobia. The thing is that while the Sinophobia article talks about both kinds of anti-Chinese prejudices, it doesn;t draw any links between the two. There is a link between British Indophobia in India and East African Indophobia. A link that Patel documents in his article. There is no such link ebtween any American Indophobia and all this (who put that dotbusters stuff there?). I am amenable to removing such passages. Indophobia in B'Desh is unrelated to all this stuff, but numerous (and I mean dozens) of academics refer to B'Deshi attitudes as Indophobic, whether you and I like it or not. As a result, it falls under the rubric of Indophobia regardless of what we think. As for the US Indophobia part, I say scrap that para. I got no objections. It's all vaulted OR. A similar case may be made for Pakistan para too.Ghanadar galpa (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete On similar lines to Pakistanphobia. I also agree with Soman that there is WP:OTHERCRAP where neologisms and strange comparisons (like in the above two examples) are used to attack particular ethnic or religios groups. It has almost gone beyond the point of absurdity. Gizza^Discuss ^© 22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is being "attacked" in this article? I'm puzzled by such a statement.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Indophobia is the negative of the popular term Indomania. See sources such as [18] and [19]. Darrowen (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. While the term "Pakistanphobia" might be a neologism, the term "Indophobia" finds plenty of mentions in scholarly papers and books. utcursch | talk 11:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, possibly move uner a neutral and descriptive title, Anti-Indian sentiment. `'Míkka>t 17:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, a notable term Shyamsunder 22:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, a notable term --D-Boy (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
comment: in what sense is it a "notable term"? JSTOR has been mentioned here, but a search of JSTOR indicates that (with two lonely exceptions from 1972 and 1977, both about Uganda) all uses are in reviews of Thomas Trautmann's Aryans and British India (1997). That seems to make it a NEOLOGISM - people picked up and ran with Said's use of "Orientalism"; there's no real indication that "Indophobia" is (yet) used independently of discussions of Trautmann. Certainly the phenomenon is notable - but might a "rename" not be in order? --Paularblaster (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not Yet New York

Delete Not notable per WP:ORG - short lived organization. Contested prod. Strothra (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I'm the one who contested the prod, mainly on procedure, but I'm starting to favor actually keeping. There is a somewhat sizeable amount of media coverage in regards to Not Yet New York. I think it could meet the lower echelons of notability with that. It has had coverage in secondary sources. Moreover, it says the longevity MAY be considered in WP:ORG. I think the meaning of WP:ORG is different than you are alleging. So far as I can tell, the organization was not that short lived and seems to have been around and active in Los Angeles for several years. I believe that WP:ORG, when in regards to length, is referring to organizations that are around for a matter of months only, and this organization has much more longevity than that. matt91486 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just wanted to dig up some links here, I didn't save them when I contested the prod for some unfortunate reason.

-I found online the two sources not linked to by the page author, for one, to prove their verifiability (the third is already linked to on the page): [20], [21] -[22] This is a Google books result that alleges that Not Yet New York had an impact on the urbanization process in Los Angeles. -[23] Another Google books result; this one that puts their activism in some context. -Other assorted mentions in substantial works can be found [24], [25], [26], -Additionally, this bibliography here says includes Not Yet New York in its annotation for an article by Dick Russell in the Amicus Journal. I don't have access to that journal at school or online, but it would be another source should anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt91486 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Very impressed with the research and links provided above, which certainly carry the organisation into notibility, a lot of which could be used to aid the articles expansion. Could be suited to a merge given the groups relatively short life line, although i am having difficulty finding a suitable partner. Either way the article should not be deleted. Carlyle 3
- I'll see if I can get some of the content into the article now that I've found it, but I really am not particularly familiar with the topic so I'm not sure I'm the person best suited to contextualize it. matt91486 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obi Sium

Unsuccessful candidate in an election--no other source of notability that I can see. Blueboy 96 16:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Verifiable by reliable sources --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything outside the fact he was an unsuccessful Congressional candidate? Can't find much outside that from the sources I've seen. Blueboy 96 00:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - unelected politician with no other notable atributes -- Whpq (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete congressional race was not notable enough for subject to merit his own article. --Tdl1060 (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Closed, page no longer exists as submitted to Articles for deletion. The page has had both the name and contents totally changed since the start of this afd. Without prejudice towards a new afd once there's actually consensus on what the page is supposed to say, and what the contents should be. Any new nomination within 7 days should be considered disruptive. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms

Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms (2)

as per recommendation of previous AfD, re-listing this on the basis of reluctance of involved editors to address the numerous NPOV and OR violations in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Previous AfD closing:There is no consensus to delete the article at this time, but I do note that there does seem to be a consensus that this article is in need of major editing and contains a strong element of original research and POV. I also note that this AFD is rife with irregularities, including movement of editor's comments and the comments to the effect that this is somehow a "vote". I'm sure this was all done in good faith, but it wasn't particularly helpful to sorting through this mess and the parties responsible are strongly cautioned to not do this in the future. Those irregularities alone nearly made me relist this for another, cleaner AFD and I would say this close is without prejudice against another AFD at some point if the core issues here are not sufficiently addressed

Other related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms (deleted: Violation WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NOR in its attempt to equate terms from opposing religions.)

Whoever closes this AfD, please delete all associated article redirects as well... List of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms, List of Christian and Jewish terms, List of Jewish and Christian terms, Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms, Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms, Glossary of Lisa's terms and by the time this closes, 10 more. Avruchtalk 20:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom, and merge any useful material to the Messianic Judaism article. I tried responding to the previous AfD's recommendation, but there is no willingness to address these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

*Keep for now I think this AfD is premature. I voted to delete in the prior AfD, but the problem right now is unrestricted edit and move warring, which I'm disappointed to say has not been slowed down by the presence of an involved administrator. The issue is that a couple of the editors make contentious redirects, moves, edits blah blah and then revert endlessly without discussing it. Personally, I prefer the list version - but I think a more deliberate approach to this topic is required and this nom is clearly not moving towards that end. Avruchtalk 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Well, if none of the involved editors want to try to improve the article... Avruchtalk 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment We wanted to. Unfortunately improvement here boils down to shrieking about Messianic Judaism and Judaism sitting side by side. Maybe if we title the MJ column "Fake Jew" and put a little picture of a Messianic Jew sitting in the corner with a dunce cap on, with an Orthodox Jew in black rapping his knuckles with a ruler it might satisfy Lisa and we can all go home, what do you think? -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete This article is inappropriate on the face of it. The vast amount of material written about both religions means that even sourced statements will be cherry-picked in order to further the personal agendas of the editors. Virtually all of the topics listed in this article have articles of their own. Those articles are the correct place to get information on the subject. This article seems to be an end-run around the full articles for OR and POV purposes. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment In several cases where I've used statements from main articles like Bible you've removed them and replaced them with your own unsourced views because you didn't like what they said, thus you have been one of the main problems regarding any "end-run around" issues, then asking for deletion on claims that is taking place. Ironic and fascinating to watch. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete The only way to construct such a glossary would be a violation of WP:NOR. RJC ^Talk 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep and maybe also merge to the Interfaith article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsure with qualifications. I appreciate and share the concerns that this article violates WP:NOR. However, I can see the value and legitimacy of a glossary to accompany, or as a duaghter article of, the article on Judeo-Christian. I feel very strongly that this should not be an instrument to further inter-faith dialogue (see WP:NOT) although of course we should have articles describing interfaith organizations. I also think that insofar as this may serve as a part of or daughter article to Judeo-Christian, compliance with NPOV requires that we distinguish between notable and fringe views. Notable views should be included, fringe views, not. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment it is notable because it is a fringe, since it is the only religious group that claims to be Jewish and believe in Jesus. Another, because it has been described as one of the biggest threats to Judaism today. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

comment: this article pushes the "glossary" definition. It is, in fact, attempting to be a comparative discussion of Christianity and Judaism, and should be treated as a sub-article of that. Our Category:Glossaries is a strange animal, falling between Category:Lists and actual articles. I have no opinion on this case in particular, but it certainly highlights a larger problem. What is the difference between a glossary and a list? Case in point, Portal:Contents/List of glossaries lists to articles titled "glossary" and "list" indiscriminately. We need some sort of guideline on this. thanks, dab (𒁳) 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete. The article cannot rid itself of a perpetual vandal, and now is grossly misleading. Christianity and Judaism are two different religions. Having undifferentiated glossary entries on the same page is misleading. Wikipedia can have a Christian glossary page and a Judaism glossary page, but putting them on the same page without a tabular separation grossly violates NPOV by imposing the editor's selected POV for one religion instead of another.Tim (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please step over my pool of vomit on the way out, thanks. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the creator of the article has, himself, voted Strong Delete, can we simply do a speedy deletion and be done with this? None of the work done on this article need be wasted. Editors can simply move their material to the appropriate articles, since almost every entry in this one has a full Wikipedia article. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not the genuine article that I vote to delete, but your vandalism of it. You've taken something with NPOV and blended Judaism and Christianity together in a way that only Messianics can do. I cannot support the blending of Judaism and Christianity since that violates synthesis. If you won't be banned, and the vandalism can't be stopped, then your vandalism should be deleted. That's my vote.Tim (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Query: Which version of the article are we talking about? It now redirects to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms which I find less objectionable than the original "compare and contrast" tabular form that had, in my opinion, massive undue weight, POV and OR problems. In the previous AfD, I had argued that the article should be combined with Messianic Jewish theology but a sister glossary article is about as good. --agr (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Tim changed the name of the article to Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms out of pique when Jossi and I changed the format of the article to a list. Of course, it isn't a glossary of Messianic terms. It's simply an undifferentiated list of terms used in either Christianity, Judaism, or both. Jossi then began adding the intro paragraphs from the articles in question into this one. Since it adds nothing to the articles from which the intros are being pulled, my view is that the whole article should be deleted. Tim and Bikinibomb are intent on changing it back to the tabular form, and if this AfD fails, they will certainly do so. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment No I think I said in the last AfD keep and take out of table format, and that if it was in regular section/paragraph format it probably wouldn't have been under such scrutiny. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Then Delete, sadly. We've done the experiment and I think it's clear that a Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms is going to be an endless source of policy violations. I have no objection to a Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms or to Tim or whoever creating a Christian-Jewish term sheet in their User space to suggest good practice to editors, with future use open to later evaluation.--agr (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Obituary

With sad affections we announce Glossary of Christian, Jewish and Messianic Terms died today at the hands of it's parents , sisters and brothers , cousins , nieces and nephews .

It's young life had grown in torment and agony to a frail stature of 94 terms . It had no descendant children of it's own . It is survived by 138 internal forefather links , 135 external foremother cite references .

Cause of death , violent inhumane execution , preceded by slaughterous tortures and vehement sufferings .

Services for the deceaesed will be held at the mass grave site of the saints and innocents . All are welcome to attend the vigil of the 3rd night watch to reflect upon the life and death of a lost hope , prayer and lamentations .

The family request instead of flowers , that donations be made to charitable organizations to which this young article was born for ............ Pilotwingz (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Shmaltz (talk) 01:11, 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 wasDelete JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lexx planets

A tricky one this as it's not actually an article, but it's a list of (mainly) fictional planets from the LEXX TV series. Almost all of the links are incorrect, which isn't an issue in itself as they could be corrected, but my main reason for proposing for deletion is that the planets listed are, to a large extent, included in the Lexx article itself and/or included in Category:Lexx, rendering this page basically useless. Whether this comprises a suitable set of reasons for deletion.... I don't think a redirect would be appropriate as someone is (IMHO) far more likely to use the Lexx article as a basis for finding details of any planets in the series. CultureDrone (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect. I find most useless redirects to be harmless. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete or redirect, whatever way. It's a nothing article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Lexx. Foremost, there's a Category:Lexx planets with a grand total of four entries (one of which is the article in question). Second, of the links in the article - two (well, apart from Earth) directs to an article on a planet from the series (Fire (LEXX)), one redirects to Lexx, one to Steve Wozniak, one to an unrelated page on mythology, the rest are redlinks. So, concur with nominator. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - anyone interested in information on planets that appeared in the series is likely going to start at Lexx and links exist in that article to the articles on the planets from the series. "Lexx planets" is an unlikely search term. Otto4711 (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per others' rationale on search terms. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasKeep JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ground provisions

Contested CSD, tagged as deletable for lack of context. Keilana^talk_(recall) 15:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. It was tagged as Nonsense when I looked, which it wasn't, so I said so. Somebody changed it to Nocontext, which seems entirely correct to me. If the only reason we are having this AfD is my comment on the talk page then I withdraw it. I was only contesting the reason to delete not the deletion itself. Sorry for any confusion. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: What is the edit war about? Are they allowed to take the AfD off once it has started without formally closing it? --DanielRigal (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

People would come and edit the article, unaware that it is listed for deletion. Imagine their disappointment, a couple of days later, when they see that it is gone without their input. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Change to: Weak keep. The consensus seems to be that it is now a valid stub article and I am happy to go along with that. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak Merge, it's not actually that bad a stub, really. However, it could be merged to Caribbean cuisine if no other consensus is reached. The term seems to be used extensively on Google in the context of Caribbean food: [27]. Lankiveil (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Either Merge with Caribbean cuisine or Keep as stub. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, if merged, a redirect is in order. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I will abstain from voting either way. I came across the term a couple days ago and came to WP to look it up, it wasnt here, but the WP search did include several articles that used the term (with no explaination to what it is). I simply felt that was justifable alone for an article. So I googled and read a bit about it and created a stub which I honestly felt was useful to WP. I am no expert on the subject, so I am limited in what I can expand it to. I can add a few external links though. A merge to (and redirect) Caribbean cuisine does seem somewhat sensible as opposed to outright deletion. But reguardless, I do think it serves a useful purpose on WP (if you were reading one of the articles on WP that use the term, would you know what it ment?). I wont contest an AFD, I do beleive in the AFD process on WP and consensus. Russeasby (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
keep certainly encyclopedic, which is to cover all useful knowledge in one place, in this case WP Hmains (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep or merge and redirect, either way is fine - looks like an encyclopedic topic but if it's not likely that it's ever going to be expanded from a stub you may as well choose the latter of my suggestions.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

KEEP I had originally posted this article for CSD as nonsense. I was mistaken by putting that CSD on and changed it to No Context. After the CSD was contested someone removed the CSD and changed it to AfD. I then removed the AfD tag and stated that since I was the one that put the article up for discussion I concluded that putting it up for CSD was a mistake and it should be left as a stub. Please advise on my talk page. Jdchamp31 (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pigman☿ 22:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Sanderson

Wikipedia is not a news source. This has no claim of notability. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 14:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 14:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Getting murdered is not automatically notable, despite being reported in the press. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, WP:Notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unfortunately, police shootings are all to common, and falling afoul of one does not make you notable. Lankiveil (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Delete; per DanielRigal, borders on an A7 speedy. Blueboy 96 17:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:N. Macy's 123 review me 17:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - just isn't notable. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete: No lasting notability. Mentions are limited to news stories at the time. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:40, 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 Closed as "keep, non admin closure." by IslaamMaged126. Tevildo (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 197

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 197

None of the internal links have articles.Many of articles like this were created and deleted.I see no notability or use of this article and I say delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IslaamMaged126 (talk • contribs) 2007-12-30 14:32:18

Keep for the sake of coherence. There are hundreds of list articles in that series, and the fact only one case in this particular one is mentioned in a separate article is no grounds for deletion. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, if only for the sake of consistency and coherence. A bunch of redlinks on what's really a disambiguation page is perfectly fine. Wizardman 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. They will eventually turn blue. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Many of the articles will eventually be created, and this list is useful as are all others in this series for research purposes. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep I've found similar pages (for other volumes) to be helpful; articles can be created on a piecemeal basis. RJC ^Talk 19:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Seems too much like a directory entry. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Verifiable by reliable sources --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
keep as part of a large pattern; lists are often 'directory entries'--that is one function of lists in WP; and there is no WP requirement that items in a list be blue links Hmains (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Like the above statement this is reliable and correct sources. The information, by the best of by knowledge seems correct. Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above as an important link for WikiProject Law. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:23, 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 wasDeleteJERRY ^talk _contribs 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of major slaughterhouses

Unsourced list without any qualifiers for "major slaughterhouses". Does this refer to number of slaughtered animals, weight of roducts, areal of the enterprise, number of workers? --jergen (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep – per WP:LIST. However, get rid of the “Red Links” they can be added later as articles are written Shoessss | Chat 13:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, defining a slaughterhouse as "major" or otherwise is subjective and therefore POV. Lankiveil (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Comment – No it is not. We define “small" and “LARGE” business, “tall” and “short”, “Skinny” and “fat’ and so on and so on. What business you may consider as not major in a large city could be extremely major in a small village and be just as notable. By the way Happy New Year all Shoessss | Chat 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment, so, how "major" does a slaughterhouse have to be to be included? Is a business with ten employees in a village of twenty (50% of the workforce!) "major"? The criteria are way too slippery to be anything other than purely subjective. Lankiveil (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Delete - I agree that "major" by definition of the article could be considered subjective, although is it mainly that the article is completely unsourced and for me, provides no real value which is my reasoning for delete. It is basically listing the locations where the apparant "slaughterhouses" reside, with no info on them, no reference for their existance, and no reason given as to why they are major, or indeed what it is they apparantly slaughter. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Categorize. Easier to maintain. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. A slaughter house is nothing more than a shop. And I dont think that such content should be allowed in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory or database of information. -
Rustam
17:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Categorise Blanchardb Computerjoe 's talk 20:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I dont think a list of slaughterhouses is important enough for either an article or a category -

Rustam

11:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete although if I knew of an encyclopedic reason for the list, I'd change my vote. I don't see why anyone should care what the major slaughterhouses of the world are. If they do, this list might fit in Slaughterhouse. Noroton (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, slaughter this article. "Major" is POV and none of these slaughterhouses seem to have individual notability to justify categorisation here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Specific parameters should be added to qualify additions to the list, if this is the only problem then it can easily be fixed. Furthermore, we must allow for organic expansion of articles before we can consider for deletion! -- Librarianofages (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kenkojuku

This article does not assert notability. It is a small number of local karate dojos, which do not have any sort of notable influence. RogueNinja_talk 17:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep: Although it was me who requested proving notability of the article, I believe the school may be encyclopedic. First of all, Kenkojuku has dojos in different states, so saying that it is "local" is not entirely justified. Also, it is more notable in google than shotorenmei or "North American Karate Do Federation", not to mention "American Shotokan Karate Federation", which we list in shotokan. It definitely does exist, is a particular shotokan school with dojos in more than one state, and (better than some others) does derive from Funakoshi's direct student who, at first glance, is notable (and thus his own federation may be worth mentioning at least in an article on him). I suggested to RogueNinja that the author of the article (who is a newcomer to Wikipedia) should be given one week to improve the article and add external references and sources, but apparently this request was refused. As a result, I have to vote to keep the article, as all in all I believe it will be worse for Wikipedia to lose this information, than to retain it (although, perhaps, rather under Tomosaburo Okano than the other way around). Still, I do agree the article needs improvement and notability needs to be proven. Pundit|utter 18:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of things... Someone mentioned that I was the owner of the dojo - not the case, just a student for about 17 years. I know that this style is a direct descendant form Funikoshi, but as with a lot of the martial arts around traditional styles, documentation, especially online documentation is very hard to come by. I am interested in working on this article further, but my time is limited (yeah, I'm sure that's been said before...). So, if we can keep it as is for now, I will get back to it and make a best effort attempt to beef it up further. Note: I am not adverse to keeping the content under a page for Okano if that would help. Thanks for your patience with me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregmarch (talk • contribs) 14:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I made an assumption you're a dojo owner because of this, but I understand you are a dojo's webmaster then. Please, do expand the article, but first of all add external, reliable sources to the article - Wikipedia cannot take any claims for the facevalue. Even common knowledge must be supported by references. Pundit|utter 15:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Having studied Shotokan Karate for over 40 years and being quite familiar with various styles of Karate my feeling is that the article should be kept. Kenkojuku dojos, and students of Kenkojuku dojos can be found worldwide. Sensei Okano was a genuine Karate Master. He and his students never abandoned traditional karate training and values. Sensei Okano's students are among the very best Karate practitioners in the world, some recognized through tournaments, magazine covers, etc. most taking a traditional path (practicing, teaching but not exploiting the art through sport karate or tournaments). Because of their focus on “traditional karate” many of his students are less visible than the household karate names such as Chuck Norris. However, if one were to actually observe Sensei Okano’s students level of skill compared to some of the Karate household names one would be stunned at the degree of excellence of Sensei Okano’s students who seldom seek recognition. I believe the references to Sensei Okano's students should be limited to his direct students. If we go a generation after his direct students the students would number in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.

The reference, “Some of his most famous students outside of Japan are Masters Takeshi Akuzawa, Toyotaro Miyazaki, Kazuo Kuriyama, Masakazu Takahashi, Koji Sugimoto and Minoru Horie.”, should be kept. Masakazu Takahashi is now Head of Kenkojuku in the US and Worldwide and should be clearly mentioned. The others in the above reference were or are important students of Sensei Okano and deserve recognition as well.

The last reference Sensei Andrew Faupel at the end of the article with pictures comes across as an advertisement. Sensei Faupel with all due respect is not one of Sensei Okano’s direct students. His lineage would fall underneath Sensei Takahashi. It is important to represent Kenkojuku which has a significant place in the history of Karate in the US and Japan and now Worldwide. However we don’t want the article to be an advertisement for a specific dojo.

J.Pilgramson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.13.6 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If what you write is true, you will find no trouble with confirming these claims by referring to reliable third-party resources (martial arts magazines, books, journals etc.). Without such even the sentences that may be perceived as most obvious can be challenged and removed. The article does not cite any sources and a such is not fulfilling Wikipedia standards. Pundit|utter 18:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep – and change name to Kenkojuku Karate Association. Enough coverage to claim noatability as shown here [28] Shoessss | Chat 13:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, if we are to keep it, Kenkojuku is a much more intuitive name, and there are no other kenkojuku associations/federations, so there is no need for distinguishing this way. Pundit|utter 15:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep somewhat notable Shotokan offshoot. JJL (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ——Quasirandom (speak) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 04:02, 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 Speedy delete (was also csd-tagged). Article told details about a fictional character's life, but did not mention in what book this was written, nor assert why the book or story were encyclopedic. JERRY ^talk _contribs 13:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Petite

No context is given, but it looks like this is an article about a non-notable webcomic: [29]. Google search reveals a grand total of 4 hits: [30]. Article creator removed prod-tag without comment. I think this is non-notable and non-verifiable as evidenced by the total lack of secondary sources. Lankiveil (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources, no context, few hits... Very petite notability. Ψν^Psi_nu 13:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete – sorry too say. Only found one hit regarding this subject. However, if I need a diaper bag, found multiple sources for “Petite Planet” Shoessss | Chat 13:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - barely notable and poorly written. Pundit|utter 14:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note by closer: he above comment is not valid. barely-notable means notable enough, and article maintenanxce issues are not valid arguments for deletion. JERRY ^talk _contribs 13:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, could be a speedy delete A7.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:02, 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. Hut 8.5 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sugar & Spice (album)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sugar & Spice (album)

No reliable sources for album (the Wal-Mart link is to a single from this hypothetical album). Kww (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete, nothing at all on Google. WP:CRYSTAL. Lankiveil (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Delete – Let’s wait for the album to actually release. Shoessss | Chat 13:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:Crystal, also one of the links is listed as "Listen 2 Da Track" (what track? why the bad English?) Doc Strange (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - clear case of Crystal balling. - fchd (talk) 14:47, 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 03:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nine Hundred Nights (film)

No notability. No sources or references, no press coverage - IMDB does not count (according to WP:NF). CultureDrone (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep – Notability established as shown here [31] and here [32]. As a side note to all editors, how about making a New Year resolution that before recommending a Keep or Delete, do a little research on the subject. I have seen extremely good and notable articles be deleted under WP:SNOW because no one took the time, just a few seconds, to verify. HAPPY NEW YEAR Shoessss | Chat 14:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Shoessss.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I stand suitably chastised :-) CultureDrone (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The nominator !voting "keep" -- I guess that counts as a withdrawn nomination. Should this be closed then? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Also a look at google news may be helpful, in future[33].--Aldux (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per nominator withdrawal and snow. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Domaine du Castel

I'm not sure about this one, the company does have some google hits but not many, and this company is 'located in an old chicken coop' it seems rather NN to me. Harland1 (^t/_c) 10:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep You are mistaken. It is not located in a chicken coop, being made like moonshine; it converted a chicken coop into it's building. This is not all that uncommon is Israel. In fact the original Israeli supreme court building was located on top of a chicken coop. The winery is now generally considered to be the second best (after golan winery) in Israel (though there are much larger producers of wine). (NOTE: I am the creator of this article). Jon513 (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. —Nirztak (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OK but there doesn't seem to be much coverage in reliable secondary sources that I can find, if maybe you could add some to the article then it would be fine. Harland1 (^t/_c) 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

from [34]: "Castel has repeatedly been recognized by international critics. Ben-Zaken's wine is the first Israeli wine selected as wine of the month by Decanter, the world's premier wine magazine. It is also the first Israeli wine to receive 90 points in Wine Spectator, and the only Israeli wine listed in the French Betteane & Desseauve's The World's Greatest Wines, where is it favorably compared to the best French wines. It is also the first Israeli wine to be awarded three stars by the wine writer Hugh Johnson (which it has received consistently since 2004)."

also an article in the The New York Sun mentions it. A full article about them. Also mentioned at the end of this article. Almost every major wine database has an entry for Domaine du Castel, and have positive reviews. Jon513 (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Also this google news search shows a lot of articles for which Domaine du Castel was the subject. Jon513 (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep – Found numerous and verifiable sources as noted here [35] and here [36].. Shoessss | Chat 14:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Above entries have shown this winery to be at least mentioned/having its wine rated in leading international wine journals (WS & Decanter is 2/3 of what is probably the world's top trio), and the article has a reference to a quite notable wine blog, written by a "real author" in the wine field. In my mind, this is quite enough to establish a winery's notability irrespective of the exact number of Google hits. Tomas e (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine I think that we can close this as keep now then? Harland1 (^t/_c) 09:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have changed your mind then it can be closed now. Jon513 (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep (redundant), more RS could be listed, but the nominator seems convinced and a speedy keep is probably imminent? MURGH ^disc. 15:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time

No indication of notability. No awards won, no sources cited, no press coverage. Author doesn't seem to be especially notable. Book therefore seems to fail WP:NB CultureDrone (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep, I was able to find a couple of non-trivial references to it by reputable news organisations: [37], [38], [39]. I think it may just be enough . Lankiveil (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Merge – How about a merge to Muhammad: a Biography of the Prophet they seem to go hand in hand and are by the same author. Shoessss | Chat 14:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Karen Armstrong. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep The book reviews from the International Herald Tribune and New York Sun that Lankiveil links to show that this article passes WP:BK #1 "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." Bláthnaid 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tidied the article and added some information. Bláthnaid 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Without a doubt, keep it. Why should it be deleted? It should be wither merged or kept, not deleted.--Ohmpandya (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep "No awards won, no sources cited, no press coverage." is not a criterion for deletion. However, the book has been reviewed by many newspapers contradictory to the claim. ~atif ^Talk 04:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Logic puzzle. For Psinu's suggestion, there doesn't seem to be a sufficient reason to split off Category:Logic puzzles, and at any rate that's a decision outside the scope of this discussion. –Pomte 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Determination puzzle

No reliable sources. Maybe redirect to Logic puzzle, but AFAICT the term was taken from Nurikabes lead and given a broader meaning here, but is not used widely. -- /home/dalric/talk 10:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Logic puzzle as suggested CultureDrone (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as suggested or, if this is a valid suggestion, Make a Category. Looks possibly useful as a grouping, but not an item in and of itself. (If someone could weigh in on if "Make a Category" is a valid response, I'd appreciate it... still learning here!) Ψν^Psi_nu 13:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Both your suggestions are perfectly valid on an AfD. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per nom, seems like a duplicate term.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:14, 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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maurizio Giuliano

Non-notable author and UN official. The article neither meets WP:BIO nor WP:PROF: he has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Nothing suggests that he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his peers or successors.

He published two books but none of them appear to be notable. The back cover of the books (providing information about the author) are not independent of the subject.
It appears that he was expelled from Burma [40] some ten years ago, but that neither seems exceptional nor widely documented in reliable secondary sources.
He claimed to hold the world record of being the youngest person to have travelled all sovereign countries, but this is not backed by multiple, reliable sources (I asked for confirmation here and again here but was not able to obtain sources).

(Full disclosure: although this should not have any impact on this Afd, one may be interested in looking at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Myth1727 for more background about some of the contributors of the article.)

Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: sockpuppets: I've read 400 lines of the detailed book reviews by Maurizio Giuliano, while not in "American" English, there was not a single grammar or idiom error in the uber-sophisticated reviews (British-Italian birth), which are far above the writing level of the wiki-spamming, so I suspect that any sockpuppets might be politically motived (Cuba?), not self-promotion. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep – I’m sorry, unless I used a really bad search criteria, I was able to find numerous sources on notability as shown here [41] and here at Google News [42]. In addition, a news article about breaking the record [43] Shoessss | Chat 14:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion. It seems however that there is nothing tremendous to be found in the Google search for this person. It is not so difficult to build up an Internet presence, and in this case I think that is what happened, at least partially. So, I think more specific, reliable and independent sources about the person himself should be provided to demonstrate notability. So far, in my opinion, nothing reliable has emerged. Regarding the news article you mentioned [44] (which is equivalent to the one I already mentioned above), it only reads that "[he] heads to London today with more than 40 passports filled with immigration, visa and transit stamps to prove his record with the Guinness Book of World Records." It does not say that the record was certified.

More importantly, the news article does not seem to be reliable. It contradicts other sources. The following sources say that he was born in 1975: [45][46] and more. The article, entitled "I’ve been everywhere, man - at 23" but the article was published in 2004, which means that he would be born in 2004-23 = 1981!

Finally, the news articles [47] merely mention his position as UN spokesman. The article does not relate to him! We need reliable sources about him, not just mentioning him as spokesman. --Edcolins (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

~~'Keep'Weak Keep- Subject has been mentioned in BBC & NYTime articles (above link) and publications demonstrate a permanent and lasting contribution to his field of work.~~ Lazulilasher (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The BBC article mentions that he was expelled from Burma some ten years ago, but this neither seems exceptional nor widely documented in other secondary sources. This is an isolated article: " "Maurizio Giuliano" reporter" : 1 hit , " "Maurizio Giuliano" expelled" : 1 hit , " "Maurizio Giuliano" Burma" : 1 hit . This is not sufficient IMHO.

The NYTime article does not relate to him and only mentions him as a spokesman for the UN, nothing more, like many other articles. This does not meet WP:BIO, as mentioned above. Please reconsider. --Edcolins (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting on my talk page regarding this discussion, I appreciate it. Anyway, I do agree that this is a tough decision. While making my choice I did refer to WP:BIO and my decision hinged between these two criteria:

1.) A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published....(WP:BIO, emphasis mine). This agrees with your interpreation (i.e. Giuliano was not the subject of the article, but merely referenced). However, I found it difficult to balance that clause with this one:

2.) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field . Thus, I was not able to justify recommending a delete while considering Giuliano's published contributions to his field.

Basically, I believe this discussion boils down to different interpretations of the Bio notability policy and although I respect and agree to an extent with your position, I am still forced to argue for Guilano's inclusion in the encyclopedia. However, in the interest of forming consensus, and out of recognition of your argument, I have changed my position to Weak Keep. Thanks again for notifying me of your reply. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Two books that are not widely noted do not a notable person make. There doesn't seem to be anything in the article about the UN spokesman role cited above, so I don't know anything about that. However, I'd venture to guess that there are hordes of UN spokesman. Avruchtalk 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per all of this discussion, I change my mind as well--two little known books do not make someone notable, you folks are correct. I also couldn't find the book on Google books when I went to look a minute ago. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep. [claims confirmed] For a young person, he seems notable enough, with Italian and Spanish sources: the ABC News claim for record world-traveller seems accurate with 40 passports (each has limited pages for visa stamps), and as confirmed UN press contact for the Central Africa Republic, who (ergo) has toured all nations in Africa, I think this could be referred to Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa, which might need bios on reference authors. IMHO he's more notable than a merged Pokemon character, so let WikiProject Africa decide if they need the information, or possibly move into a list of recent UN Africa press officers. Should we tag the talk-page "WikiProject Africa"? -Wikid77 (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed: Circa October 2007, he is youngest traveller to all nations, for Guinness World Records, see: Enttwist. -Wikid77 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to the debate, but... sorry, claims not confirmed! The source you have provided, i.e. Enttwist, is actually a mere copy of an old version of the Wikipedia article on Guinness World Records. The sentence: "Many records also relate to the youngest person who achieved something, such as the youngest person to visit all nations of the world (Maurizio Giuliano)" was added [48] by User:Validmore, a suspected sock puppet of Myth227, and, as mentioned here, IMHO, these edits may come from Maurizio Giuliano himself.

By the way, the site "Enttwist" violates our GFDL license, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.

In other words, the claim (the record) is not confirmed, and we still need reliable sources. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. --Edcolins (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed: Youngest on 24Feb2004 (age 28 yrs 361 days). -Wikid77 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? Please cite your sources... (By the way, this contradicts the ABC news report: "Giuliano, 23... "). --Edcolins (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have expanded the empty Talk:Maurizio_Giuliano, listing independent sources, and stamped the article for "{{WikiProject Africa}}" which needs editors. As the youngest traveller to all nations, he's been all over Africa. For credibility concerns, let's keep some "{{fact}}" tags in the article, requesting more sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Make him write Wikipedia articles: (me again, Wikid77). As noted above, I've read several detailed book reviews by Maurizio Giuliano, while not using "American" English, there was not a single grammar or idiom error in the uber-sophisticated reviews that compared the histories of various nations or regions, with the needs of the world traveller for hotels, transportation, etc. The reviews were written in a mix of worldwide savvy tending towards the layman, with no "posturing" or pretentious tone, so I don't see any potential personal-bias associated with his WP article. I really feel that he is a notable person, but perhaps followed by over-zealous fans promoting, in limited English, his widely published views on their various wiki websites. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wikid77, I have removed [49] many of the edits you recently made to the article. I have removed references that may be considered unreliable IMHO (Please see the edit summaries of my recent edits). The two remaining references you added [50] and [51] only mention him as a UN spokesman, which is not enough to confer notability in my opinion. --Edcolins (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DeleteJERRY ^talk _contribs 05:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dieter stanzeleit

Er, this man claims to be the son of Nerissa Bowes-Lyon (a mentally disabled cousin of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) and of Michael I of Romania... Certainly a hoax. Delete page and lock to prevent recreation, as with the properly spelt form of Dieter Stanzeleit. Charles 09:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete As nominator. Charles 09:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There appears to be a more complete article at rowiki: ro:Dieter Stanzeleit. I can't read it, but someone who can should probably check to see if there's anything significant there. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't read Romanian, but the only source is the man's website, which is a hoax, given his claimed parentage of a Bowes Lyon family and royal Romanian married couple... Incidentally, Michael I of Romania today issued a new family statute which states, without a doubt, that only the people listed are members of the family (his father fathered an illegitimate son, but Michael has not). Charles 09:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ per nom and total lack of reliable sources. David Mestel^(Talk) 10:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep: this, from the Scottish Daily Record and this from Ziua appear to establish notability. David Mestel^(Talk) 09:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I counter with the case of Rosario Poidimani, subject of a deleted article here and also that the article does not support notability. Charles 10:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Please provide a link to that deletion discussion, thank you~~! 75.195.129.116 (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found them myself Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Note that the article is now an anchored redirect to a section of Hilda Toledano. 75.195.129.116 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Having now read those discussions I don't think the case is equivalent. Rosario Poidimani had no independent sources that those discussions could find, here we seem to have found two. I equivocate using seem because I don't have a subscription to the one newspaper and I don't read Romanian for the other, so I can't actually read either.75.195.129.116 (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are Portuguese language news results for Poidimani, but it doesn't warrant an article. The fact that an imposter/fraud (not a basis for deleting an article) shows up in the odd newspaper article or two doesn't make him notable and encylopedia-worthy. I can think of a number of people who have been the subject of newspaper articles who are not notable. If that is the only basis for making an otherwise non-notable person notable, we would have Wikipedia articles on everything that has ever been mentioned in a newspaper. Charles 13:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIO states, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". The guideline places the stipulations on this that the coverage should not be trivial and that it should not be related to a one time event. The sources cited here seem to be non-trivial (again, I can't assess them properly due to lack of a subscription and lack of understanding of Romanian) and this also doesn't seem to fall under the umbrella of a one time event. It is, of course, only a guideline and we can override it if we think we have good reason to. 75.195.129.116 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, an otherwise unremarkable crank. No independent sources. Lankiveil (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Delete. Even if it is true (that this man claims to be of royal lineage), there is no assertion of notability in the article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RS. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete The only sources are the individual's own website; in order to retain this wiki-article, somebody would have to show that there have been newspaper articles or other material written about this individual. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete as appearing to fail WP:BIO and WP:RS generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 13:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Hoax or not, he may be notable. He's been mentioned in the Scottish Daily Record & Sunday and there appear to be other reliable sources(e.g. [52]), but I'm not sure because I don't read German or Romanian and can't determine if they're primary or not. 75.195.129.116 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Lucifer Principle

AfDs for this article:

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep, the book's author, Howard Bloom, is notable, even if his page is a mess. The rationale given for deletion is underwhelming. Lankiveil (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
- Comment The book's author is notable or not is not the issue here. The issue here is that the book itself is notable or not. "Unencyclopedic" means not fit for encyclopedic standard. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The author being notable is not sufficient. WP:BK, Criteria -> point 5; Very few authors pass that test and get to rest on their laurels. TheBilly (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's a serious book which was widely reviewed at the time of its publication. There are sources in the article. AfD is not cleanup. I note that this article was nominated for AfD TWO MINUTES after its initial creation. This is, in my opinion, entirely unfair on editors who wish to improve wikipedia by writing new articles. The AfD page lists several stages which editors should go through before nominating articles and I doubt they were carried out by the nominator in the 120 seconds he took to bring this here. Nick mallory (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:Time taken for nomination is not the issue, notability is the issue. Moreover a long time have past since the article's creation, but no more references are given till now by which its notability can be established. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- More comment: "It's a serious book" do you have any reliable source by which you can prove that it's a serious book? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, have you actually looked at the article recently? Nick mallory (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep - I say weak because I'm not completely convinced the article passes WP:BK as yet. But it will pass once cleaned up, and as has been pointed out sufficient time hasn't been given before AfD commenced. I've also thought that the book might not need its own page as such and just having a reference to it at the Bloom article might be sufficient? I also feel that the nominators rational of the article being non-encyclopedic was not valid. Sting_au Talk 09:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I am again saying that the time factor is not a issue here. Take note that enough time has past since the creation of the article, but more references are not given. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  - I've used cite web per WP:CIT to better display a couple of the references that Nick mallory added. There is a couple more to do but its late here and I'm off to bed. Yawn. So if someone else wants to do them then go ahead :-)Sting_au Talk 11:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    - Thank you Sting. I'd be interested to know why the nominator doesn't think reviews in The Washington Post and Boston Globe count as secondary sources. Nick mallory (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      - 137 reviews on Amazon is an impressive number. I feel that since the book draws a lot of attention, even protests, it is worth keeping. Especially aftre the article was thoroughly cleaned.lkitross (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Time most definitely is an issue, if your claim is non-notability (as you state above). If you nominated the article 120 seconds after its creation, it is hard for the closing administrator to believe that you made any attempt whatsoever to look for sources yourself, and as such can reasonably discount entirely your argument that the subject is not notable, for being clearly based upon no research whatsoever. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination says to look for sources yourself before nominating an article for deletion, as do Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Notability (and indeed User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage). This means you, as well as everyone else. Looking for sources is not Somebody Else's Problem. You are not being any help to Wikipedia, nor any help to AFD, by not doing so. Whereas if you had looked for sources you'd have improved the encyclopaedia at the same time. Please always look for sources yourself from now on. Uncle G (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment The good Uncle makes an excellent point; I however observe that the nomination was made with an automated tool, NPWatcher. The fact remains that many Wikipedians take part in newpage patrolling, and while this nomination is clearly in bad faith, it begs the question of whether this kind of patrolling is appropriate for Wikipedia altogether. -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. per improvements to article that establish notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable book by a notable author; appropriate remedy is to improve the article. RJC ^Talk 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Sources currently present in the article demonstrate notability of the book, even if they're biased towards the contraversy. Plus a wrist-slap to the nominator for bring this to AfD two minutes after the article was created, while edits were still being made, in direct violation of policy and guidelines. Show good faith and let the editors do the work before wiping it off the servers. —Quasirandom (speak) 19:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The book is clearly notable. The article obviously needs some work, but that's what ought to be done, not nominating it here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I really can't be bothered to explain why, because the nominator can't be bothered to explain why it should be deleted. Shouldn't we have a speedy deletion process to get rid of AfDs where no sensible reason is given for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 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 Keep JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Wellock

AfDs for this article:

Delete No notability proved. The only sign of notability given in the article is an award, even there is no evidence that the award itself is notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. non-notable docboat (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Weak keep- only three journal articles, two books and one book chapter published - I am surprised he made it (very recently) to full professor with just that. Pundit|utter 15:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Doesn't the fact that he made it to full professor with so few publications make him notable for that fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) 20:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to comment: barely meeting the typical academic standards is definitely unusual, but I don't think it is that distinctive. However, with two books published and an award, I don't see much harm in keeping him - I believe Wikipedia is a bit more stricter on scholars than on musicians, in general (scholars e.g. rarely are in the spotlight of popular press, which makes it much more difficult to find third party coverage). Changing sides then. Still, adding independent sources mentioning wouldn't do any harm, and would satisfy the requirements. Pundit|utter 23:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - DGG has expanded this article and I think it is in accord with WP:Notability (Academics). Johnfos (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The WP:PROF guideline (and yes, I realize it is only a guideline) does not seem to be able to support this particular professor. I'll especially point out one "caveat" that says:

"It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability."

We don't seem to be able to find independent sources that verify Mr. Wellock's notability in his field. At least I can't. Happy to retract my deletion if anyone else can find anything notable. Keeper | 76 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment In looking for online references to my most recent book, I came across this discussion of my significance/insignificance. This whole process is quite new to me. Scholars tend to denigrate Wikipedia, but I have to say that I am quite impressed with the amount of energy and diligence being put into discussing my entry. I don't really mind whether I get deleted or not (I'm surprised I was added in the first place), but as an outsider I am interested in what seems to be the crux of the issue here, notability and independent sources. I don't have some big award to validate my work (few do). So it seems for most scholars their notability would come down to how often they are cited by others. How much is enough? I don't have access to the usual citation indexes and Google Scholar is very incomplete, but I checked for citations of me in books that use Amazaon.com's Search Inside feature (it is easy to use but also very incomplete). My first book was cited by 17 other scholarly works. Is that notable? I haven't a clue. How are Wikipedians figuring this out for each discipline? Perhaps if there were clearer guidelines, you folks might not have to expend as much time on these discussions.

By the way, Pundit's comment about my being a full professor might be correct in Europe where attaining that rank is a much bigger deal than in the U.S. In the U.S., two books is more than enough for a full prof. at a teaching institution like mine (my teaching load is more than twice that of a prof at a research institution). In fact, I know plenty of profs at research institutions like Berkeley who have only one book. Sorry if this entry is too long, but I am a newbie. 71.94.183.70 (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Tom Wellock wellock@charter.net

I concede, I was measuring by the research university's standards, and from these in the US I am familiar only with the pretty demanding ones, which definitely may affect my judgment. Also, I believe that standards for scholars in Wikipedia are a bit too strict. Being cited is definitely a good indicator and I believe that Wikipedia may be lacking a specific policy on academic references (these would probably fall under general third party sources, but I believe that references are more worthy, after all e.g. 10 interviews/stories on a will-be singer in local newspapers should perhaps be worth significantly less than one quality international reference in an article in a top-tier journal).Pundit|utter 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. Reviews of his Critical Masses book appear in Choice (December 1998), Perspectives on Political Science (March 1999), H-California (August 1999), American Historical Review (October 2000), and Technology and Culture (January 2001). This seems like a good level of review for an academic book such as this (I would have expected one or two published reviews; five seems high) and seems to satisfy the minimal level of third-party sourcing needed for Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is where differences in fields of expertise comes into play. Frankly, five reviews for a book on U.S. history is the bare minimum that I would expect("Critical Masses" actually had more than ten). But you couldn't expect that of, say, a Russian history topic. There are probably less than ten possible English language journals that might do a review of such a book, and some of those won't do a review simply because they can't find someone to do it or they don't receive a copy from the publisher. So, expect fewer reviews for non-U.S. history books. Tom Wellock wellock@charter.net

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by me, as spam. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan Student Satellite Program

Delete Non notable - Reads like an WP:ADVERT. Fails WP:ORG. Strothra (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as spam. Ψν^Psi_nu 13:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per above. Is spam. Doc Strange (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Spam, and horribly written spam at that. Blueboy 96 16:49, 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. BLACKKITE 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Majors

Non-notable missionary. A good bio, but he hasn't done anything unusual or notable that 10,000 other missionaries haven't also done. Also, while he founded International Worship in English, that also doesn't appear a notable org, but that's for another time and place.Mbisanz (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Change to Neutral Right now, the only reason I have to support this AfD I created is that I am not certain Honorary Citizenship is notable (since AfD, other facts were added). However, as I don't have the knowledge to ascertain whether or not it is a notable honor, it would be inappropriate to use a hunch as the sole reason to delete.

However, as others in the community that I respect have expressed their opinions, its also probably rude to say that I as nominator trump their will and try and close this AfD myself.

So instead I'm changing my !vote to neutral and have no opinion on the worthiness of this article for inclusion in the encyclopedia. MBisanz ^talk 13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Agreed as per nom. docboat (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep the Article My understanding of Wikipedia is that it serves to inform netizens about factual or newsworthy people, places, and things. The problem with Mbisanz's argumentation is that Wikpedia should not set a standard of 'notable' or 'unusual' above any newspaper--for to do so is to limit the total exchange of reported and existent information. For instance, Wikipedia has a reference on aglet. I think most people could care less about the etymology, definition, and allusions of aglet, but for people like me who are interested in all information, great and small (though I, myself alone perhaps, don't grade information) are excited when they punch 'aglet' into Wikipedia and find a relative wealth of information. Therefore, I call not only for the preservation of Bill Majors, but also for the welcome inclusion of any missionary who has caught the attention of any newspaper, and Majors's work has been reported by two capital metropolitan presses, the The JoongAng Daily and The Seoul Times. Bill Majors is a tiny Wikipedia entry because it's supported by only three references, but the references are solid and it should stay. Jim Elliot has a much larger entry because of the greater fame of his story. Bill Majors has a sliver of fame in his corner of the world and he deserves a proportional piece of Wikipedia. As something as tiny and, to many, insignificant as an aglet has an entry, so any person who has been documented by a professional journalist should too. Let's expand Wikipedia by making it a concise cross-reference of media, rather than trying to enforce some nebulous standard of 'unique' or 'notable'. Davidabram (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete per nom, although some more solid references could move me to not care one way or the other. Besides, argument above isn't compelling (though I do appreciate the info on aglet) and the Jim Elliot statement is both waxy and, more to the point, makes exactly the opposite argument the writer is trying to make. It's sort of like saying that Bill Rodgers had a long-distance running article of more import written about him, and I had mention in a couple of articles that I ran cross-country, so I do too. I did, and I don't. Ψν^Psi_nu 13:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment (Baseline Keep): Refer not to waxy but to WP:NOTBIGENOUGH and this particular quote therein: "Those working at newspapers, magazines, journals and other secondary sources have to make sure that a subject is notable before they write a piece on it, because if they do not, no-one will read it, their employer will lose money, and they will get fired. So we can rely on their judgement of ["how notable is notable"] - but we cannot rely on ours." Poseidon or pneumatic or whatever his name is doesn't refute my point but makes it. Why walk this silly tightrope of 'all references are equal but some are more equal than others'? If you want to dig up your cross-country win reported by the Jellystown Gazette and include that ribbon-breaking glory-shot taken by your mom 'go ahead with your bad se'f', as we say back home. My vision of Wikipedia is unlike that of the stiff leather-bound Encyclopædia Britannica I grew up with (and still exists for all those encyclopedia puritans out there): as long as sources are cited, grammatical and objective standards are maintained, and photos are free from copyright infringement, I say let it all ride, from Bill Majors, through Steve Lomasney, to Gerald P. Pulley. Let's allow Wikipedia to reflect the fullness of all documented information rather than making it into some public version of the World Book Encyclopedia. Davidabram (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Davidabram, AfD is not about voting. So you don't need to say keep many times. Dekisugi (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Without any reference to inclusionism vs. deletionism, this article -- considered as a stand-alone article -- seems to be of interest to the strictly local area of a single city and thus doesn't seem to me to meet WP:Notable. We already have something that contains endless reams of human knowledge (and opinion), collected and displayed without regard to notability (or accuracy or common sense) -- it's called the Internet. This is an encyclopedia and it's for notable topics. Anyone who wants to try and change the notability policy is welcome to do so -- elsewhere. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No sources that reveal any particular notability. I'm afraid Davidabram does not understand Wikipedia's policies on deletion. Rebecca (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The article asserts notability, but more importantly, it is backed up by reliable sources -newspapers. What's the problem here? Davidabram brings up a valid point with the Notbigenough argument, and I will also add, from the same guideline:

"Some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable"

. (emphasis mine) WP:IKNOWIT. Keeper | 76 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment (Keep With New References) : I've been making two arguments here, basically, 1) that Bill Majors is a notable missionary and worthy of a Wikipedia article, and that 2) what makes any person notable is coverage by a media outlet. #2 we can debate 'until the cows come home' (as my mom says--and probably even while there at home), but I want to, once and for all, lay #1 to rest--in light of the two new references that I have added to Bill Majors, his Honorary Citizenship of Seoul, granted to only 437 people since 1972 (not 10,000 as Mbisanz so unfairly quipped in his deletion nomination), and his serving as a source for the Wall Street Journal. I don't know about the other posters here, but I've never heard the sound of the Wall Street Journal calling for comment. Therefore, since Keeper76 (a name that I hope does not denote his willingness to arbitrarily keep any proposed Wikipedia article--but rather his dedication to chime in when articles meet his high Journeyman Editor standards) voted to keep Bill Majors even BEFORE I added the two new references, that, AFTERWARDS, we can now unanimously agree to remove the undeserved AfD from Bill Majors. Davidabram (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep- He is a notable figure affiliated to one of the biggest churches in South Korea. He even received a Honorary Citizenship of Seoul for his achievement in South Korea. Does notability always have to be associated with English speaking world? This nomination is just absurd. --Appletrees (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Being "associated" with something notable, doesn't confer notability. And I've been working with the Korea Wikiproject to find out how notable "Honorary Citizenship of Seoul" is. My first thought would be that its akin to the "keys of a city" for an American city, but I could be wrong and am looking into it. MBisanz ^Talk 14:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete- I have checked through the linked website, and have found the following post:

December 29, 2007 - David Milanaik posted the articles for the International Worship in English and also another article describing Bill Majors. Thanks David for putting IWE on the map. >Have you ever tried to find IWE on wikipedia? > >I tried to write an article and wikipedia did not allow me as the founder to write about myself. (I guess that is why) > >I need somebody who can write a short article about IWE and let people know that there is an International Worship in English in Seoul at Youngnak Church. > >It would be great to be found be people through the free encyclopedia on the internet. > >Anybody willing to give it a try? > >Cool.... > >PB > >ideas: > >Article for IWE > >The International Worship in English (IWE is pronounced "I" "WE") is a community of faith in Seoul, South Korea. Bill Majors (now the head pastor) worked in Youngnak Presbyterian Church (2-69 Jeodong, Chungku Seoul 100-032, South Korea) as a simultaneous translator in the 9:30 AM and 11:30 AM Korean worship services from 1988 until 1993. The international people who visited did not join the church, but just enjoyed attending the church to experience a "big worship" in Korea. The Senior Pastor of Youngnak 1987-1997 (Rev Lim, Young Soo) encouraged Bill Majors to return to America to attend seminary. After seminary Pastor Bill returned to Korea with a vision to start an International Worship in English (www.myiwe.com). Youngnak's session approved the first International Worship in English on Easter of 1998. Today the International Worship in English has become a growing ministry (English worship services 10 AM & 3 PM on Sunday and also 8 PM on Wednesday) in the international community of Seoul. Through the website (www.myiwe.com) you can find worship videos, pictures and location map (downtown near Myoung-dong). >

http://myiwe.com/bbs/view.php?id=board&no=1120

This article, and the speedily deleted article International Worship in English falls under WP:COI, even before we begin to consider its merits. Wikijgraft (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC) note: this is the only contribution so far from user "Wikijgraft" as long as we're throwing out COI concerns. When I was new, I didn't know what COI was, or db-bio for that matter. Hmm. Keeper | 76 15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, we do say you can edit your own biography, just to be careful when doing it. if he's notable he gets an article, if he's not, he doesn't, the COI issues probably are better handled at WP:COIN as an editing or mass-add issue. MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The COI issue, although obvious here, does not 'non-notable' make. (see Gerald P. Pulley - a COI article, nominated by Mbisanz, then correctly withdrawn after sources were appropriately added (and I "voted" delete there :-)) . At issue here is the article's subject. This particular subject, Bill Majors, has an article with references from Seoul Times, JoongAngDaily and the Wall Street Journal. The JoongAngDaily article has a picture of Mr. Majors in the lead section. I've never heard of Bill Majors. I've never heard of IWE, as I'm guessing the vast majority of Wikipedians would also admit to. But I have never heard of 99% of the articles that are rightfully here. The key is verifiability through reliable resources. This article fits the bill (and I usually lean towards deletionism, check my contribs if you don't believe me.) I recommend a nominator withdrawal and a review of the speedy deletion of the parent organization IWE. Keeper | 76 15:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think I'm the one who speedy'd it, so that probably WP:DRV, There is still another day or two with this AfD and I'd like to get the notability of the honorary citizenship worked out, as that is the deciding factor for me. MBisanz ^talk 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've been reading Wikipedia articles for a few years now and I promote them to students as a springboard for citable information. I tell my students never to site Wikipedia as it's not a source in and of itself but a collection of sources. I always thought that Wikipedia was pretty cool until I started to see, just last week, what a bunch of stuffed-shirt simpletons are responsible for making it tick--or not tick as the case seems to be. What a Wizard of Oz moment! The ideals of Wikipedia are sound: to create "a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia free from original research, and the aims of an individual editor".[53] Unfortunately, the ideals of Wikipedia have fallen into the hands of some ridiculous information police, who feel it's their job to decide the very quality of facts, because the game of simply certifying veracity is too easy. As Keeper76 pointed out above, I used newspapers to back up my articles, and, like any journalist, I can write objectively when my content calls for it. Does anyone have a problem with Kyung-Chik Han? I wrote that today. Well, gee, the Templeton Prize, I never heard of that, even though Wikipedia says it's worth more than the Nobel Prize--and Mother Teresa and Billy Graham are notable, but maybe Kyung-Chik Han is just "associated" with their notability. What is that supposed to mean, "associated with notability"? That notable people may be made Honorary Citizens of Seoul but being made an Honorary Citizen of Seoul does not make one notable? You'd think someone who has to point out the twenty-five law schools that he's been accepted to on one of his user (or is that 'loser'?) pages might have sharper powers of reasoning. Well, I, for one, am not beguiled by such ethos. I thought Wikipedia was Infopedia, but it's really just Famouspedia. It's impossible to learn anything new from it because before you have a chance to find a cool fact or person that fact or person has been consumed by a school of sharks. Davidabram (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment (Keep with Total Project Complete) Basically, Kyung-Chik Han was awarded the 1992 Templeton Prize for founding Young Nak Presbyterian Church. And Bill Majors, an American missionary to Seoul, was made an Honorary Citizen of Seoul for creating an English ministry, International Worship in English, at Young Nak Presbyterian Church, an effort that was the final fruit of Han's achievement. We have two notable men, two notable accomplishments, and one vision. Han was born in Korea and studied in the US and Korea. Majors was born in the US and studied in the US and Korea. Both men worked together to shape a notable two-pronged organization that bridges countries and continents. Over the last ten days, I've tried to make the firm beginnings of four articles that tell this entire story, complete with all the necessary sources that prove both accuracy and notability. I apologize if I've been short or gruff with anyone, but I get upset when people seem to doubt my respect for the integrity of Wikipedia; I've tried my best to make articles that meet its ideals of accurate and important information. Davidabram (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing Admin please note this is a duplicate vote see above. This guy is not helping his case even though I agree with a lot of his points.--BozMo talk 19:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the duplicated signs of Davidabram because of the confusion. --Appletrees (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep At least two solid, reliable, independent references giving significant coverage to the subject are shown in the article, therefore it meets WP:N. And besides that, he seems to be a nice guy, and that's just gotta count for something.Noroton (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Despite the style issues with the newbie author as far as I can see this guy has enough notability. --BozMo talk 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. This article doesn't yet make an adequate case for the notability of the subject, in my view. I am not too distressed if it is kept, but it seems unable to express what is interesting or significant about the man. He seems to have won some awards, but the article doesn't tell us what work he did to deserve the awards. Perhaps there are some additional sources to be found somewhere. The article also contains some ridiculous wikilinks to generally-understood English words such as article and daughter, that I'm sure an editor could quickly fix. The first entry under 'Bibliography' is a forum posting that I'm sure is not acceptable under WP:RS. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If the words are so generally understood, there's no reason for them to be in Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia is about exploration that leads to knowledge expansion. A fool says, 'Duh! I know what daughter means.' A scholar reads the article and follows all the links therein, internal and external, and reads and reads until he gets tired and it's time for lunch. I'm not a scholar. I'm a fool. But I'm trying to use Wikipedia to change, and that means following all links as a reader, and including all links as an editor. At daughter you may find a link to Juan de Flandes. And article has seventeen references and three external links. Even something as seemingly obvious and petty as the color orange (which is just an example and not in Bill Majors) has a chapter on the color in culture with eighteen examples in it--and another chapter just on different shades of orange that's prefaced by a link to variations of orange. As for the first entry in the bibliography, I didn't hyperlink the original article because it's a dead link. So I included a link to the only copy of the article that I could find on the Internet. Of course, one might argue that it may be a fake article. But a scholar might want to access to it, so I put it there. I guess you could stick it in 'external links' but it's a newspaper article that supports the content so it belongs in the bibliography with a Caveat lector that it's archived. If you want to edit it further to read 'Archived at site external to original' that's fine by me. Davidabram (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Your view seems to differ from existing policy. See WP:OVERLINK, which provides:

A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that readers would benefit from following. (Example: Lucy went to the store.) Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is analogous to a cross-reference in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see:)". The links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read.

This will be a more effective article (and will be more helpful to the reader) if it only uses links relevant to the context, such as Templeton Prize or Yonsei University. Regarding my comment about a 'forum posting,' I think you are correct, in that the forum is only a 'convenience link' in this situation. The real reference is the newspaper article, which is not required to be online. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see:)"". I'm imagining that, okay, but I don't see how Wikipedia is any way analogous to a print medium in this case. Even if Wikipedia sentences are entirely composed of linked words the sentences are just blue, and no harder to read. And you can click on any links you want and the blue becomes purple. Then if you return to the page you can separate the links you've seen from the ones you have not by purple and blue. With the 'Lucy went to the store' example I can tell there are different links there by moving my mouse arrow over the words. The existence of the word 'to' in the example caused me to click on it. I don't know if would have ever put to into the 'search' box and hit 'go'. But by following 'to' I found that it may be an abbreviation for thermal oxidizer which I just learned "is a process unit for air pollution control". I see your point of appealing the Wiki rules, but do you see mine of appealing to a separate reason and logic? The main problem I see with Wikipedia editing is that the construction method is outmoded. The more links and references you have, the more clutter you need. You should be able to write with ease with some sort of Word processing interface--formatting text and adding links with left-click selection and right-click and drop down menu choices--not all these brackets, asterisks, colons and whatnot. Davidabram (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are disagreeing with the current Wikipedia guideline. If you think this is important, you should be endeavoring to get the relevant policy changed, and not using an AfD discussion as a soapbox. You should also try to comment more briefly. It's partly my fault for bringing up this point. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Point me to a better box and I'll lather it up. Is this brief enough? (Though next time I think I'll go for a novella). Davidabram (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. [54] demonstrats notability. Rewrite using secondary sources. The current two reference don't contains the subject's name! Advise the author to base contributions on verifiable sources explicitly, and avoid contributing from personal knowledge. We don't delete newcomer's articles because they haven't got the approved style. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am assuming that the author will provide further references to demonstrate notability. They may be in Korean. If not, Merge and redirect to Young Nak Presbyterian Church, as per Dougie WII below is acceptable. If not, in preference to deletion, Usefy for User:Davidabram in expectation of better sources and a rewrite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, as one article and honorary citizenship do not make a person notable. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Young Nak Presbyterian Church. The church is notable, but I don't think three separate articles are needed. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (splitting is up to editors, and is not part of this AFD closure). JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indian general elections 1977-1999

Indian general elections 1977-1999 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)This article seems to be made of content copied and pasted from some website. The article doesnt mention the references nor does it abide by WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#PAPER -

Rustam

07:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Elections and election results are important and valid encyclopedic content. A copyvio charge needs evidence especially since the edit history shows multiple authors. WP:NOT#PAPER says that content should NOT limited to the constraints of a paper encyclopedia. Nomination cites WP:NOT#PAPER for a use against its purpose. • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete, to a large degree the material here is duplicated in articles like Indian general election, 1999. Also, the 1977 to 1999 distinction seems rather arbitary. Lankiveil (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Keep, listing of election results is not in contradiction with WP:DIRECTORY. When I wrote this, a long time ago, I was far sloppier with references. All numbers are from election commission website (www.eci.gov.in), but the tables have been arranged by me, and wikified with internal wikilinks. It is thus, not just a copy. As per 1977-1999 distinction, it is not arbitrary. In Indian electoral politics, 1977 was a watershed year (the first time Congress lost power). --Soman (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Split - The content should definitely be kept. I would actually support breaking these elections into separate articles, though, and adding some prose in addition to the information; I think that would make for better articles in general. matt91486 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Split - one article per each election, as is standard. Biruitorul (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
split one article per each election; content is certainly encyclopedic and specifically WP encyclopedic. Hmains (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as an absolutely encyclopedic topic. Sure, some cleanup might be warranted - but that is not a reason to delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Those Dancing Days

Questionably notable band; sources do not appear to meet WP:BAND standards SkierRMH (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep; As I've said elsewhere they are quite notable. They get a lot of play on one of the UK's biggest music TV stations (MTV2), were nominated for being the best band in Sweden by MTV, etc... Yeah they're no Arctic Monkeys but far, far, less notable bands have articles. --Josquius (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. They don't make WP:MUSIC on releases yet, but do on other criteria - they seem to have had plenty of coverage and have gigged in the UK as well as in Sweden and have appeared on Swedish television.--Michig (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. A Google search found plenty of significant coverage that should be adequate to meet notability criteria. I've expanded the article to include this.--Michig (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep - There seems to be relatively decent quality in the references. matt91486 (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I removed my own speedy deletion tag to this article when the author added that the band has been nominated for a major award. That alone is enough of a notability assertion to me. The source to support this assertion is now present. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep The reliable sources provided are sufficient for proving notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The band looks notable enough, although if someone's pointed out that they don't meet WP:MUSIC alone then this clearly cannot be a snowball keep even if there is consensus to keep.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:23, 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. Hut 8.5 19:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EBabe

Subject not important - author already incorporated the gist of this article in eBay. Any further description of eBay policy on this practice unnecessary and not important as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Also, contains original research & neologism without any references. Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources, already mentioned in the eBay article (although maybe that should be removed from the article). There is no source for the term "eBabe" either. TJ Spyke 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination, no need for this neologism. Cat-five - talk 07:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I thought this looked familiar. I just checked the logs and I was the one who patrolled it at new pages. It had a speedy on it at the time so marking it patrolled stopped other people wasting their time looking at it. Anyhow, my reason for deletion nn as per above. Also fails WP:NOR issues. Sting_au Talk 07:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep so that we can get more great photos. No, wait, I mean Delete as per nom. My id seized the keyboard for a sec. Ψν^Psi_nu 13:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced original research. Gwernol 14:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete as WP:NEO. JJL (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No cites (I don't consider the links to further images as cites, more a sad excuse). I can't find any clear and obvious use of the term, so is a neologism. The content is also blatant original research. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Note though that the content that was inserted into eBay has been removed as OR. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Snowball delete. I can't think of any speedy criteria that apply but this article sure as hell is crap.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Fully agree with above. OR. Think outside the box 17:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Completely useless article, belongs over at UrbanDictionary Alloranleon (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep as I did a Dogpile search and the word does seem to come up frequently. Happy New Year! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read those results? None of them are for the term "eBabe" as used in this article, except of course the search result for the Wikipedia article... Gwernol 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sen no Shōan

Sen no Shōan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominating since there is no reasoning why this person is notable, it is a single sentence article that has remained a stub with only 3 edits since it's creation over a year ago with no expansion or new information given. Cat-five - talk 07:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete 1 1/2 years as a 1 sentence stub with no sources, that pretty much sums it up. TJ Spyke 07:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - nn as is fails WP:BIO. plenty of time was allowed to source references if available so no need to keep it any longer. Sting_au Talk 07:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Very weak keep appears non-notable, but could conceivably be expanded into a better article about the Japanese tea ceremony, where it could be merged. If no further editing takes place, then by all means should be deleted. docboat (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have no problem giving an article time. However, this article was created back in July 2006 and has recieved a total of 7 edits (with 1 being the AFD tag getting added and 1 being me adding the unreferenced tag, plus the original creation of the page). TJ Spyke 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (speak) 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It would be helpful if WikiProject Japan were to get involved here, as almost certainly all the sources would be in Japanese. Not to mention if the rest of the material from the Japanese Wikipedia article were translated into this one. —Quasirandom (speak) 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I note that WP:NOEFFORT is listed as an argument to be avoided in AfD. —Quasirandom (speak) 19:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: According to the Japanese article, he was a step son of Sen no Rikyu by his mother's marriage to Rikyu. Then he got married to his step sister, Rikyu's daughter Okame and had a son named Sen no Sotan. Does this help? Oda Mari (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Can't say it helps me, since those names mean nothing to me either. It feels like something significant about these people is supposed to be evident, but isn't being stated. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. You do know that right now this article quite easily meets A7 NN-BIO by not asserting significance of its subject? Simply being remembered from hundreds of years ago isn't an assertion of notability in itself - or is it?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Actually I do think that being remembered from hundreds of years ago is an assertion of notability. It's certainly better than the standard which applies to many of the articles about TV episode or computer game related subjects, which seems to be that they are remembered from hundreds of minutes ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd argue that being named a master of any art or craft counts as an assertion of notability, especially for something as culturally significant as the tea ceremony. Whether it's enough notability for Wikipedia, and whether it has been demonstrated, is another matter, but I don't think it qualifies under A7. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pending further information to demonstrate his historical significance, ~~delete~~. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I !voted too soon: Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's references do seen to demonstrate that Sen no Shōan was a major master in the development and transmission of the tea ceremony. Notable figure, so keep for expansion. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I added the following references to the article: Sen Sotan and URASENKE TRADITION OF TEA. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
'Keep based on the added sources. Edward321 (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. He is a Japanese tea master of some significance. Both major Japanese dictionaries (Kojien and Daijirin) have an entry for him. Japanese Wikipedia has an article. There's no reason to delete this. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have moved the article to "Sen Shōan", as this is the reading that the Japanese dictionaries use. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I think this is pretty clear now. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. His name is notable enough to be found in major Japanese dictionaries. --Saintjust (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Cry (2008 film)

This article is about a non-notable film project that is not at all in production. It lacks any listing at IMDb, it lacks verifiable coverage from reliable sources, and its official website is on Myspace. The one "potential" star, Robert Gordon Spencer (IMDb), has no reliable hits with the film title on Google. I proposed the article for deletion, but it was contested, so here it is. No opposition to recreation down the road provided that it can meet general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for films. Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete No reliable sources (the only source is a MySpace page). Considering IMDb lists films that won't come out until after 2010 and lists any movie confirmed to be in existance (even movies that are just reported and not confirmed by anyone), that puts this movies existance in doubt. TJ Spyke 07:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, IMDb includes even announced projects. When I see films announced in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, even with no talk of actual production, an "in-development" listing will usually pop up at IMDb. Some projects, like the Logan's Run remake, have had an entry at the website for years at end. Logan's Run used to be marked for 2007 per IMDb's estimate (see Logan's Run (2007 film)) but now it shows to be 2010, even with no sign of production. Just wanted to state that for passing editors who look at AFDs for unproduced films -- I have a few contested prods of such articles that I'm eventually putting up as not to glut the listings (see WP:FUTFILM#Clean-up). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the notability guidelines for films; should the project enter production, the article can be recreated. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 07:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I will copy and paste the page onto my User Page until I can re-add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk • contribs)

Sounds good; appreciate that. If you want to find headlines that pop up about the project, you could set up a Google Alert (if you have Gmail) to get an e-mail of a new headline. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete Information provided seems credible, but I could find no sources via Google / Google News Archive, which would raise WP:CRYSTAL issues. Article should be recreated based on the content of the original article once reliable sources become available. Alansohn (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's fake information at all. It's just a pretty small-scale film, from the looks of it. There's just little significant coverage from secondary sources at this point, just information from the primary source, which doesn't establish notability. If production begins and there is independent coverage, it's likely that the film article can be recreated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I found sources in a search, but all were from second-tier fan-oriented sites, with nothing usable in an article to establish details. There is material there, but I'm not sure this article is ready for prime time. Alansohn (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I came across similar sites, but I think it's akin to WP:BAND in which there's presently a small group congregated around the filmmakers of this project like a local band would have its fan base. It's not quite there yet. :) Hopefully Obi-Wan can track its progress to see if it reaches production and gets some independent coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:29, 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. Hut 8.5 19:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crossvision

non-notable software product. Has had multiple tags on it for almost a full year, but has seen minimal improvement. Not quite blatant spam, so not a speedy, but still has a vaguely promotional tone to it. Lankiveil (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 07:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete- nn software. Fails WP:NOTE per, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article fails to address this issue. Also looks pretty spammy to me too. The creator of this article could have included information on this software at the parent company article. Perhaps a redirect is in order? Sting_au Talk 07:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jfire (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I've never heard of it. Deb (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Chivalry (Mod)

non-notable Half-Life 2 mod. Probably good fun, but no indication that it's a particularly notable mod, Google provides a whole bunch of places to download it, but no actual indication from a reliable source that it's particularly noteworthy. Lankiveil (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - blatant advertising. Fails WP:NOTE. The whole article reads like an advertisment. Sting_au Talk 06:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been mentioned in noteable magazines . I can add this information if that would make this more "noteable". I've taken out comparisons and colorization in the text. I've also added it's features in gaming magazines in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guammer (talk • contribs) 07:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Yet another non-notable mod games. The article has no non-trivial independent reliable sources to keep this page alive in Wikipedia. Dekisugi (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated Some major changes have been made to avoid the appearance of an advertisement and to make this more researcher friendly rather than "consumer" friendly if you will. Please review once more to see if the text is now more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guammer (talk • contribs) 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - can someone clarify which PC Gamer magazine issues it appeared in, and what the features actually entail? If it's just a mention, or a "we've put it on a coverdisk, here's the blurb", then that's too trivial for WP:N. If it's actually a substantial review or interview then it needs correctly citing (perhaps in a Critical reaction section). Marasmusine (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the feature is here, the June issue. It looks substantial enough to me. Personally I prefer multiple coverage for notability, especially for indy games/mods, so I will still sit on the fence. But should this be a keep, I'll have a go at working that reference in properly. Marasmusine (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment If you or someone can plug that in appropriately that would be good. I wasn't sure on what a good way to do that would be other than just the mention. If theres something more suitable please feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.245.128.25 (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Though there is coverage of this mod in PC Gamer (I'm sitting with the issue in front of me), one article (plus another unverified one in PC Action) fails to assert real-world notability. It's important to put these things into perspective: PC Gamer UK has articles on several mods/freeware games each issue, so it's not like this was just one mod article in an entire issue. Meaning, it doesn't stand out as a notable mod. Una Laguna^Talk 21:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep per reasons below. Una Laguna^Talk 17:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

:P User:Krator (t c) 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep In the dozens of recent AfDs on video game related things, the big thing is always reliable sources proving notability. This article has two, so what's left but WP:PROBLEM? I disagree with UnaLaguna that having articles on several mods decreases the value of such articles. News doesn't get less notable when the New York Times of that particular day has more news ... User:Krator (t c) 00:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Krator. SharkD (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. (It looks like this article has changed to add sources since the first few comments.) I find UnaLaguna's reasoning flawed; notability is not a matter of standing out with respect to others that also meet the notability criterion. Our standard is the existence of multiple reliable secondary sources, which this article has demonstrated. I improved it a bit to be more encyclopedic (so please take another look), but it could use some more help. — brighterorange (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notability demonstrated by two reliable sources. It's just been released for a month which means that more sources could appear in time, all the better. Someone another (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - keep per above. Notability is adequately asserted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 19:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milan Dobrojevic

non-notable fractal artist. I am unable to locate any references asserting that he's particularly notable in his field, all that Google turns up is Flickr, Lulu.com (a big warning siren for me) and his personal websites. I would have speedied, but there is an assertion of notability in there, so here we are. Lankiveil (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete- nn article as now is fails WP:BIO no reliable sources cited. Sting_au Talk 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think that this Artist need to be here. He is breaking ground in Fractal Art field. Search "fractals" google images and look at his work(011art.com), you will see the differences. Citation (Milan Dobrojevic): Fractals have been usually classified as psychedelic art, although there are plenty of them which don’t give us that kind of impression. In most of fractals you will find spirals, psychedelic colors and shapes, which are easy to make in this field - if you start to create them you will notice that most of people who create fractals are still at previously mentioned level. Actually there are only 10% of people who deeply get in this field and make new way, which presents much more than only psychedelic art. From 2005. to 2007. I have created over 6000 fractals with intention to technically improve and support new view on fractals.

Milica Milovanovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboutabout (talk • contribs) 07:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability. RJC ^Talk 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete not notable. the last part of the article is also strongly promotional of *future* business plans Clubmarx (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. freshacconcispeaktome 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable. --David Shankbone 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You Can't See Your Own Eyes difference and quality? Good night! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboutabout (talk • contribs) 04:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Too early for this article, if indeed notable. Some information in the band article would be unexceptionable. BLACKKITE 00:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conversations (From A Second Story Window Album)

Article as is fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL Sting_au Talk 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - nn unreleased album. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sting_au Talk 06:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, the delete opinion is implied already as you brought this to AfD - no need to vote seperately. Lankiveil (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

I'm not voting. AfD is not a vote or haven't you figured that out yet? If I wish to add comments under my nomination I'm quite able to do so. I'm not sure where the precedent for that is though? lol ;-) Sting_au Talk 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

still no need to write Delete tho. it's sort of obvious how you feel about since you nominated if for, um, deletion. tomasz. 11:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I Disagree... as a closing admin I find it very helpful when the nom is clear as to what they are suggesting should be done. Sometimes the nom wants a merge/redirect, etc. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep i've been told that this is just an "advertisement" in ways, and i disagree. yes it may seem that way, but it provides people with information on what to expect with the band's next album and hopefully they would be able to find more information that i was not able to find. i'm merely trying to start a legit article on the bands next album, and i'm waiting for a track listing to come about so i can add that. it should be about within the next month, considering the band is going to enter the studio, and will be releasing more and more information on the album. i'm hoping you all will understand, and i'm once again terribly sorry for my misdemeanor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitar freak91 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Don't sweat it; you can remove the {{prod}} if you think the subject is notable. The next step if the original tagger thinks it's non-notable is to bring it to this place for a closer look by the community. Nobody is angry or pissed off at you for it =) Lankiveil (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Response to Lankiveil, ok thanks.. i'm glad that thats all it is.. music is my favorite thing, and i just created the article like an hour ago and wanted to expand upon it in the next couple weeks. its really hard to come by info on underground metal bands though, so i'm like, hoping this doesnt get deleted. lol. thanks dude =)Guitar freak91 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment, No worries. Rather than clutter this page, I've made a few suggestions on your talk page for future reference. Lankiveil (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Keep, after having a bit of a closer look, From A Second Story Window seems to be a notable band, and there is established precendent that the albums of notable bands are themselves notable. There are also references provided in the article that verify that the album exists and will be released. It could do with a copyedit, but I think it should be kept. Lankiveil (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Still fails the criteria listed for albums at WP:MUSIC per "unreleased albums may not yet be notable without substantial coverage from reliable sources." The article in this AfD says and I quote, "The band has been writing the music expected to be on the album for well over a year" Expected! Not even a tracklist in the article itself! Lets hear some more about this established precedent of yours please. Does it say anything about the albums needing to exist first?. Can you supply a link to this precedent? Your comment of "seems" to be a notable band I find unconvincing. But fair enough the band may be notable, but it's not the band I'm concerned about in this AfD. That may very well become a future AfD. But for now it is the unreleased album I'm saying is not notable (yet). You still haven't addressed your decision to vote keep as far as the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC read. Or at least my interpretation of the guidelines. Still fails WP:CRYSTAL too. Sting_au Talk 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I'm fairly sure that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here, as the release of the album is almost certain to happen, and the band have been talking about the direction the album is taking across multiple sources. It's borderline as far as WP:MUSIC goes, but in my opinion it falls over the line. Lankiveil (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

you should check the links i left on the nominated article. and their myspace FASSW's Myspace. because they're finished writing. they're heading to the studio, and there WILL BE an album. its really notable. and theres no reason for the actual band's article to become a "future AfD" because thats a very notable article and is kind of BS for you to throw that out there.Guitar freak91 (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm checking the bands page now and it also looks like a candidate for AfD as far as reliable sources goes it fails miserably. Don't panic I'm not going to AfD it. If you're working on that article too I suggest checking the All Music Guide and see if they have a reference to the band? You're obviously very fond and protective of the band. Study up on WP:MUSIC so you know what to look for when sourcing information. Check the "Resources" section there. Sting_au Talk 07:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah well i hate to say it but most of Wikipedia's underground music stuff is a candidate for AfD then because they all have just as much or less of the resources apparently 'needed' on Wiki. if the bands exist and you can tell they do from minor internet sources then that should be it, period. this stuff shouldnt have to go through all this criticism just to exist on the internet. half the stuff on Wikipedia is unreliable anyways, schools dont let kids use it in research projects or anything. but i can tell you all bands that i've edited or albums i've edited exist and the info is 'notable'. and so what if you cant find it on the internet, thats what i dont get. maybe its jut not popular? and if it isnt, that means theres NOT A LOT OF SOURCES. if theres not a lot of internet sources, we should be able to list it as from the actual CD that we've bought. maybe you all should go to your local cd store and see if you cant find any of this stuff, but hey, some of this isnt even sold in Australia or wherever else you may be from. its mostly america. at least this band is, because they're underground music. they dont get Fame and Glory like pop bands or people like celebrities or someone fresh out of American Idol. this stuff that i've added is real and i dont get why Wiki has to be so picky when it comes to that. if at all possible i'd like to speak to the guy who came up with all this process and mumbo jumbo and see what he has to say to all this. its ridiculous.Guitar freak91 (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it wasn't just a "guy" who came up with the mumbo jumbo. Wikipedia policy and guidelines are arrived at through consensus. This is an encyclopedia and as such needs articles to have notability and that notability needs to be referenced correctly. Don't worry about your band. That suggested link I gave you. Did you check it? All Music Guide does reference From A Second Story Window so if I was you I'd go add a reference to the bands article. Sting_au Talk 08:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as crystalline, recreate when out if necessary. tomasz. 11:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to W guice What dont you people get that this IS NOT UNDER CRYSTAL BALL?! my links are very verifiable! just go to the bands main webpage, LISTED on the freakin page! if its not there, i'll add it, and you can see how NOTABLE this is! this is BS that this is put under the "crystal ball" rule. Guitar freak91 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

*Delete: It isn't that we don't understand you; we just don't agree with you. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mean "there's no indication the subject will exist." It means that, to quote "If preparation ... is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." It doesn't look like there's a single source listed that isn't a blogpost cribbed from the same press release. Now yes, you're right in inferring that the unreleased album of a far more famous group than an obscure, underground metal band would have a much easier time passing the verifiability and reliable sources bars, but if you think Wikipedia's rules are too harsh, try taking this to Britannica or Encarta and see if their notability rules are any more generous. Finally, as far as whether an article needs to pass through many hoops in order to "exist on the Internet" ... haven't you sourced that it does already? RGTraynor 09:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to From a Second Story Window. All references are either not reliable (unverified postings to an online bulletin) or not independent. To have its own article, I would want to see independent reputable reviews and sales data, ie. stuff that will be available after it is actually released. As it stands, the article serves to promote an upcoming release, and is therefore an attempt at advertising. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as it will not even in production for another week. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 13:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horrible

This is essentially a dictionary definition followed by original research. I can't see the potential in creating an encyclopedic article about such a broad and subjective topic. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete WP:NOT a dictionary. Jfire (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, dicdef. Lankiveil (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Delete WP:NOT#DIC, WP:NOT#OR. The page probably also meets the criteria for speedy deletion under WP:NONSENSE --Rustam 06:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, any reasonable person can make sense of it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - If onomatapeia is a word defined as it sounds, then what is the word for an article with a titl ... never mind. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I call neo on this one! Oh, and Delete. Ψν^Psi_nu 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as above and per common sense. Wikipedia is not for bad performance art. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it reads like a bad Uncyclopedia article Doc Strange (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Snowball delete as nonsense, OR, expansion on a dicdef.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:31, 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 keep. Only been four days but the outcome is obvious. Wizardman 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rubidoux high school

Unreferenced, no other information online Sydney Know It Alltalk 05:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 07:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment "Unreferenced" is not a reason to delete an article; it's a reason to add references. And there is material available; search for "Rubidoux High School" + Riverside at Google Books or the Google News Archive. Zagalejo^^^ 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep I think the fact that there were There were 403 fight expulsions with the majority being drug or gang related in the 2005-2006 school year makes it notable. The article is sourced. And most Highschools are notable by default -- Fosnez (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- That is just a PROPOSED guideline, meaning it has no power and can't be used as a reason to keep an article. TJ Spyke 09:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Reply: Wrong. It means that it's an argument by him that has no official ruling for or against. It's still a valid opinion to hold and a valid argument to make. -- Masterzora (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    - But it has no effect and is like citing WP:ILIKEIT. TJ Spyke 01:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
      - Reply: Not at all. Citing it is like outsourcing the argument to someone who's already made it. The idea isn't that "it is a guideline so you should follow it" but "people tend to vote in this manner, so there's no reason this should be any different." It's far more valid than a "per nom" argument, at any rate, since AfD is not a vote. -- Masterzora (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Yet another drive-by AfD, submitted within 8 minutes of the articles creation, in apparent violation of the nominators obligations under Wikipedia:deletion policy to perform the most fundamental due diligence to consider expanding, improving or merging the article. The school, its history and alumni, all supported by reliable and verifiable sources, satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Well focused Google search turns up enough articles. For the record: most Highschools are notable by default is not listed as being policy yet. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - plenty of work done since nomination for AfD. Survives WP:SCL (although still in development so not policy as such) passes WP:V ok. Sting_au Talk 09:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Article would certainly benefit from further expansion and referencing, but most high schools are notable and the current article seems to meet WP:N and WP:V. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per fosnez BarnStarbot (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Fosnez and Camaron1. Ψν^Psi_nu 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep I'm voting just to further underline the enormous consensus. It's referenced now. meets WP:N and is quite notable. Noroton (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per Camaron and Noroton Noah¢s (Talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but maybe capitalize "High School." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep as snow. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep as Snow and advise the nominator as to correct AfD procedures; it looks like Sydney doesn't know it all. AfDing an article 8 minutes after creation when it already asserts notability is unacceptable. TerriersFan (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Agree that these speedy AfD s do no favours to anyone and should be strongly discouraged. Paste (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Obviously. 8 minutes!! Give it a chance ... pleased to see most have Victuallers (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 move. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albums released in 2007

This article is redundant to Category:2007 albums. There seems to be no precedent for this sort of article. If kept, it should be entitled "List of albums released in 2007." Freekee (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Move it as suggested to List of albums released in 2007. I think there is a use for the list in addition to a category, simply because the list breaks things down chronologically, which the category cannot do. Lankiveil (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Someone requested that it be 2007 in music, and it was done. –Pomte 13:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete information already in 2007 in music Doc Strange (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Here is the entire discussion regarding this article being split off of the 2007 in music article:

I tagged the Albums released section to be split into a new article entitled Albums released in 2007. This is because the page is over 92 kilobytes long, and at 64 kilobytes, that section takes up 2/3 of it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

-Freekee (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - information already exists in 2007 in music and the Category for 2007 albums. As an article in itself this is an indiscriminate list as each individual album has nothing in common with any of the others other than it's release year, so we rightly have the category instead. A1octopus (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete redundant.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Whoever created this article simply copied n pasted the information from the 2007 in music article and left it there, thus creating a duplicate. But that redundancy problem has now been taken care of by me, and is no longer an issue. I am the one who came up with the idea for this article, and it was for good reason. The page was too long, most of it being taken up by the albums, to the point that it was affecting the quality and readability of the article. I echo the sentiments of Lankiveil that there is a place for an article like this, that displays everything chronologically. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment someone also deleted the "List of hits around the world" on the Music in 2007 page, this is on every single other page and should be put back along with the albums released in 2007. I've had problems with the Music in 2007 page as people vandalized it to remove songs by rock acts and replace them with album tracks or upcoming singles by rap groups. Doc Strange (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep and move to List of albums released in 2007 per Lankiveil. ^anemone│_projectors 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete The chronological order of unrelated albums has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. (And ideally, if such a list is ever needed, it should be computer generated from the category and the release dates in the infoboxes.) -- Pepve (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep I need this information for reference, but since you guys are thinking about deleting it, I'll have to make a copy. I'm sure I'm not the only human being in the world who could use this information. It's just a reference page. Don't delete it. --Donignacio (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep This information is useful, and presented in a far more user-friendly manner than the Category page. Suggesting a computer-generated list is absurd due to inherent (if small) discrepancies in markup on wikipedia pages, making screen-scraping difficult; and as far as I know, wikipedia doesn't provide an API for getting regularly formatted data. Frozendevil (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but your ignorance is defeating me. Any CS student should be able create such a tool. (Not by screen scraping, but by parsing the wiki-source.) -- Pepve (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep It needs some formatting and citation work, but it's still useful and encyclopedic information, and a better way to organize this information than in a straight category page. I would support the above suggestions to Move this article to List of albums released in 2007. Weathermandan (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep-Move Needs citing, but well organised. Should however be moved to List of albums released in 2007. Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, if you wanna remove it and keep the categories, do it, but can the categories be arranged by date?!! If you wanna move it to List of albums released in 2007, be my guest... But yes, its encyclopedic content to have a list of albums released in a certain year by date... Do what you want to do, but just dont erase it... Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Return it to the original page It never should have been divided despite the big size of the page. Notes weren't really necessary in my opinion.--77.105.27.214 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep or merge with 2007 in music retaining entire content. I came looking for this info, which is the best on the net, and found it was up for deletion - what the hell? Rebecca (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep and rename "List of albums released in 2007." Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. Both are important navigation aids. The list (or is it a table?) needs expansion, including more notes, and may well become so large that it needs splitting. Wikipedia incorporates an encyclopedia of released albums, with some threshold of notability required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirected to the relevant section in Andorian, where any further relevant information may be merged. BLACKKITE 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andorian Empire

This article on the Andorian empire asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and is just plot repetition from the appearances of the Andorians. Further, there is already an article on the Andorians, and so a seperate article on their government, which asserts no notability, is duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fictional organisation with no relevance outside of the Star Trek universe. Lankiveil (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Merge, this article could be merged with Andorian -
Rustam
06:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Andorian, not sufficiently notable on an independent article. - Dravecky (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merged I have merged the info in as best I can. Fosnez (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge what is possible, and then Redirect - as a fan of the shows, there is no reason to have two articles like this. It is redundant. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the article on the species, as has already been done for others where there is little material e.g. Ferengi. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge per others. Rray (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as with others Whitstable (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close- WP:GAME nomination, again... Blueanode (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No such thing is happening, or has occurred through my actions previous to now. Judgesurreal777 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Andorian. --Polaron | Talk 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete as this article has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Star Trek canon as nominated by Judgesurreal. In addition, this article fails WP:V as it has no primary sources and WP:NOT#PLOT because it is comprised of in universe plot summary. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Gavin Collins. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Andorian. Together, they are barely notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per above. Pretty easy for me, but are there any other opinions? Bearian (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge anything important. MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vulcan High Command

This article appears to be bereft of notability or referencing, and as such repeats various plot points about Vulcans from the Star Trek franchise. As there is already an article on Vulcans and all of their aspects, there is no need for this part of Vulcan society that asserts no notability of its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable fictional organisation with no wider relevance outside of the Star Trek universe. Better suited to Memory Alpha than here. Lankiveil (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Merge with parent article on the planet Vulcan. - Dravecky (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep the Vulcan article seems a bit too long. The Vulcan High Command was a major plot device on many Star Trek Enterprise episodes. Fosnez (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment, yes, but does the article "detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance", as per the "indiscriminate collection of information" part of WP:NOT? Is it even possible to do this? Lankiveil (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Merge - While Vulcan (Star Trek) is getting long, I think the essence of this article can be transfered over to the section on government and history (I think the most important parts are already there). I would also suggest Redirect after deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the article on the species, as has already been done for others where there is little material e.g. Ferengi. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Vulcan. Add a brief statement about the High Command if it is not already there. --Polaron | Talk 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's doubtful secondary sources exist to establish notability and it's mostly just plot summary. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Vulcan (Star Trek). In the absence or proper sourcing (independent, secondary & reliable), this subject cannot have its own article. While the target is rather large, it can be considerably shorted by improving with a thorough application of WP:WAF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Katsushi Ōta

non-notable Many32132 (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Chief editor for one of the biggest publishers in the world; actively pursuing the publication of the lines he supervises in English through Del Rey Manga. Needs expansion, but most definitely notable. Doceirias (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - it appears notability can be asserted. However, given how few edits the nominator has, as well as the extremely minimal deletion rationale, this nomination itself is highly questionable. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (speak) 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Looks like he's a notable person. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep, allow time for expansion and full notability establishment. The short bit in the article now indicates notability can be established, however no one seems to be bothering with the article since its creation. I've put it in the biography project as well and hopefully someone will finish what the creator started. Collectonian (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Destrachan

Non-notable D&D entity. Origin of the term is, like the editor who removed the prod tag, a distraction. Unsourced, in-universe. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep: Notable and sourced. Deletionist disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Deleting all these crufty fiction articles is sure making all the non-fiction articles look superb. AnteaterZot has only been editing since August 16, 2007. It seems most of these deletionists are n00bs who don't know the true spirit of Wikipedia and are too lazy or unsophisticated to write or improve articles, so they take joy in deleting and destroying them instead.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that the source is primary, and does nothing to establish notability. The editor 4.130.134.233 has only been editing since today, and has been removing my tags from a variety of articles. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Because you are a fucking dumbass and a troll. Also, there is a secondary source here. Also, there is no policy which states articles need secondary sources to establish notability.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Furthermore, I have been editing Wikipedia since January 2005.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    - Not according to your edit log. According to your edit log, today was the first day you started editing (almost all of which are removing notability tags to articles without establishing the articles notability). Also, do NOT attack other editors as that only makes you look bad and hurts your chances of getting what you want. TJ Spyke 05:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      - Obviously you cannot distinguish between an IP address and a user name. --4.130.134.233 (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      - Do not ASSume things. I have have far more confirmed experience than you (even my IP has has more edits than you). TJ Spyke 06:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete No references (just links to other Wikiepedia articles), in universe, no claims to notability. TJ Spyke 05:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently, another deletionist troll. These deletionists' votes should just be counted all together as one, since they are all just a single hive mind.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Stop insulting other editors or you will be banned. You have yet to provide a valid reason that the article should be kept. TJ Spyke 06:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fictional race with no wider notability outside of the D&D universe. Fails WP:FICTION, WP:NOT, etc. Lankiveil (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Delete idiot IP speaks for itself. JuJube (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That "Idiot IP" is one of wikipedia's readers, and I'll have you give him the respect you would any editor. Also, AFDs are not a vote, so please provide a reason for your deletion. Fosnez (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Response Tell me why I should respect someone who doesn't give other editors respect himself. The fact that he has to resort to attacking the credibility of the nominator instead of giving actual reasons to keep the article is very telling. JuJube (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment; he doesn't have to attack people instead of arguing for the article; he chooses to, just like you're choosing to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - quoted from WP:N, pertaining to fiction: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A monster manual is not independent of the subject in this case, and is therefore not a reliable source. Lacking others, this article fails WP:N & WP:V. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I'll also back Fosnez; even if the editor in question is a troll, that is no excuse for the harsh language. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep due to notability and verifiability. I also agree that calling editors "idiot" is unproductive. Please let us stick to the articles under discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Extremely minor race, in-universe perspective. Wikipedia is not a D&D Monster Manual. RJC ^Talk 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per TJ Spyke and Lankiveil. Pigman☿ 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete; unlike other D&D things, the only text written about destrachans is the 3ed Monster Manual and immediately derivative works. --Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 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 redirected. Non-admin closure. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escargo

Reference links are faked (harvarduniversity.edu). There has been no ship named USS Esial. Creator's contributions consist entirely of puerile vandalism. Delete as hoax. Maralia (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Given the meaning of the French word that sounds like this, it is doubtful that any ship would be given this name, let alone an entire ship class. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 04:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- But if the term refers to the ship's cargo, then why would anyone want to refer to it as slow moving when it is not supposed to move at all? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 04:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are simultaneously reading too much into it and missing the article's point. The article isn't about a ship named Escargo, and doesn't attempt to draw any parallel to the meaning of the French word escargot—rather, it's about a play on words with the ship Esial and her cargo. However, there has been no ship USS Esial, so it's fairly likely that the entire thing is a hoax. Maralia (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that adds to the likelihood that the article is a hoax. Which was my point. :-) --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 05:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete, the article title and the bogus ship name leads me to believe this is a hoax. Lankiveil (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Delete Starter's history as a mischief maker, plus the hoax-ish nature of the article, lead me to believe it can't be anything useful. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a hoax given that the references are fake. But even if the article were completely true, it would just be a dictionary definition of an obscure slang word, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article is too short with little context and has faked references -
Rustam
06:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Escargot as a possible common spelling error. A^RendedWinter 08:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per above. Seems like a fairly common typo. Zagalejo^^^ 08:36, 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 merge and redirect. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last on Earth

Non-notable book trilogy. Only 750 hits on Google, all of which are either either various Amazon sites offering it for sale, or book directories. I cannot locate any sources which attest to the wider impact or notability of this series. Marilyn Kaye, the author, is a redirect to an unrelated music article. Lankiveil (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like this trilogy did indeed sink like a stone -- which is a shame, as Kaye can be a pretty good writer. All I'm finding is some enthusiastic blog-and-forum reviews (many of them claiming to be from teens who claim to hate reading, interestingly enough) but nothing in the way of notice from ye standard book review outlets. ~~Delete~~ as not satisfying the notability requirements of WP:BK. Alas. —Quasirandom (speak) 04:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete I dug through some Google hits, but, like Quasirandom, could only find blogs. And Amazon sites. Non-notable. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, alas, only found this in google news [55], too little.--Aldux (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
keep. these are interesting p[oints which you have all raised. However, i would like to gently ask, are there other criteria for notability, by which toi retain articles? for example, what if it is a notable author, or the series seems to be somewhat well-known? I realize some of your sources deal with that already, but there may be other ways to prove that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The notability guidelines for books lists all the ways that books qualify for being covered by Wikipedia. "Somewhat well-known" doesn't quite cover it -- and it if the books really were, there would be mentions and reviews and coverage because of it -- and to qualify solely because of the author's notability requires that the author be of major importance (as in, a name known by everyone). —Quasirandom (speak) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Marilyn Kaye. I've turned the redirect into a stub about this author, who is notable because last year one of her books was adapted into a film with some major Hollywood actors in it. Bláthnaid 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing my !vote to merge per Bláthnaid, now that we have a merge target. —Quasirandom (speak) 20:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to apparently borderline non-notable author.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge I was leaning toward delete, but with the creation of the stub for the author and the adaptation of one of her novels into a mainstream film I believe there is overall notability collectively.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge to author, Marilyn Kaye. Has no suitably referenced content beyond what would fit better at the target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Alabamaboy. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Jones (Coach/All-American)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mike Jones (Coach/All-American)

Non-notable sporting coach. This article in UoU's alumni publication references him as a "minor coach". Thought about speedying, but taking it here just to be sure. Lankiveil (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - CSD:A7, WP:N. Tiptoety ^talk 04:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete No information, not notable. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 04:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Tiptoey; seems NN. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - CSD:A7 fails WP:BIO criteria for Athletes, competitors and coaches. Non first grade i.e. university teams not fully professional league. Sting_au Talk 09:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - A shame ..... the one source I did find said he retired after 22 years at U. of Utah, and never really had an on-campus track. Talk about no respect! LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete -- I've just added the tag to the article. --Hnsampat (talk) 16:48, 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 merge and redirect, which was already done. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Osyluth

I prod tagged this with "Directory-like listing of non-notable fictional demon. Sources on page are drawn from within the D&D books, are as such are primary. Primary sources are good for meeting WP:V, but not for WP:N. This article would need more than one third-party source to meet notability requirements." An IP user removed the prod without comment. My rational in the tag still applies. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: The article under discussion was redirected by Webwarlock to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) on 2008-01-04. This is the version of the article brought to AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Further note: if this is closed as 'delete' the history should be deleted and the redirect recreated. There appears to have been no merge. See also: diff to redirect. --Jack Merridew 09:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, D&Dcruft. Not notable outside of the D&D universe. Lankiveil (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Delete No out-of-universe sources to show notability. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm --4.130.134.233 (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

By out-of-universe I mean from a source that isn't part of the D&D mythos. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep: Notable and sourced. Deletionist disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Deleting all these crufty fiction articles is sure making all the non-fiction articles look superb. AnteaterZot has only been editing since August 16, 2007. It seems most of these deletionists are n00bs who don't know the true spirit of Wikipedia and are too lazy or unsophisticated to write or improve articles, so they take joy in deleting and destroying them instead.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid calling people 'n00bs', as that can constitute a personal attack. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, bugger off.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted No third party sources (so it fails WP:N), written in-universe (see WP:IN-U). IP disrupting Wikipedia by removing all tags from Anteater, attacking editors in AFDs, and calling people who think that articles which fail policies "deletionists". TJ Spyke 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently, another deletionist troll. These deletionists' votes should just be counted all together as one, since they are all just a single hive mind.--4.130.134.233 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the above ip for 48 hours for disruption and personal attacks, here & at multiple other pages.. DGG (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete idiot IP speaks for itself. JuJube (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment And the behavior of that person does not excuse your behavior.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:N. Tiptoety ^talk 08:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per verifiability and notability of D&D. Also, what's with the language in these D&D discussions? I just came from another one that was similarly to the above ith the "idiot" comments, etc.? Please everyone maintain civility. If these D&D ones are so polarizing, perhaps we should take a break from them or something. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
D&D is notable, that doesn't mean everything in D&D is notable enough to have their own articles. This article doesn't establish any notability (the only two sources are both primary sources from companies that own the franchise, and primary sources only count for WP:V, not WP:N). There's no polarizing, it was just an IP who liked to troll. TJ Spyke 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as this stock character has no notability outside of the D&D pantheon (can this the correct collective noun?) of Devils, let alone any notability in the real-world.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Commment I believe the collective noun to be a Pandæmonium of Devils.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect - the best place for this is a small summary on Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). For real world, well I have never met a bone devil in the real world and really don't need too. Web Warlock (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge as per BOZ. This didn't need to go up for AfD, it should've been merged straight to the Devils article, no questions asked. I don't really know why stock monsters have been getting their own articles. It's silly at times, but this crusade to cleanse the Wikipedia of D&D articles is even sillier. Stop bringing these things up for deletion. Fix them. If you can add a template, you can add a redirect. This is just people not liking something they find, and being too lazy to do anything about it themselves. Howa0082 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The excuse I've been hearing a lot of is "If I merge it, someone will just revert it." How will you know until you try? I'm sure that doesn't happen 100% of the time, so why not make that tags/talk page Step 1, redirect Step 2, PROD Step 3, and AFD Step 4. The guidelines pretty much spell out that this is the way to approach things. BOZ (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Taking the Wikipedia maxim "be bold" I went ahead and edited Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) and set up the redirect to it. This can now be closed. Yes this should have been done but it is obvious that these AfD tags are added without anyone carefully reading or understanding what is in the article. Web Warlock (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good show! ;) BOZ (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am not sure this is advisable, and although you mean well, this action is perhaps presumptuous. Effectively you are hiding the article from further comments; whether they are keep or delete, you are preventing people from reading the article and making their own minds up. I would recomend restating the artilce until the debate is closed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I didn't do the redirecting on Verbeeg; on that one, WebWarlock merged the text into the other article, so the closing admin presumably saw that and just redirected it. I imagine the same will happen here, unless the closer goes with a hard delete instead. BOZ (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:FICT. Fancruft. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete — Fails WP:EVERYTHING as others have said above. And thanks to Gavin for the link. --Jack Merridew 09:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect Normally I find deletionism to be a disruptive blight on wikipedia. However, that said, in this instance I don't feel that osyluths as a subtype of baatezu need an article of their own beyond the scope of the larger 9 Hells of Baator and Devils article. Frankly there isn't enough information on them as a subtype to justify their own article.Shemeska (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons), as already done. Is not sufficiently notable on its own. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendocore

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nintendocore	Articles for deletion/Nintendocore (2nd nomination)	Articles for deletion/Nintendocore (3rd nomination)
Articles for deletion/Nintendocore (4th nomination)	Articles for deletion/Nintendocore (Third nomination)	Articles for deletion/Nintendocore (second nomination)
Articles for deletion/Nintendocore (third nomination)

Possible neologism, not a great deal of sources to be found to assert any sort of notability, some are contradictory which suggest a lack of a definitive genre. Doesnt seem to be improved or anymore notable since the last time it was deleted. Still lacks sources. neonwhite user page talk 03:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep, its a neologism, but one that appears to be in reasonably wide use. Has been defined a couple of times: [56], [57], mostly in relation to HORSE the band. Lankiveil (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Does that make it a notable genre? The Herald calls it a 'tag' which suggests neologism to me. I'm not sure how reliable a student newspaper can be considered in determining a genre's notability. They tend to have narrow perspective and not always represent the broader world. The articel stills requires extensive work and removal of potential OR. --neonwhite user page talk 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep per other nominations, and availability of sources. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, possible merge if an intelligent target can be suggested. There are many names in current use for what is essentially the same genre of music; they should all probably be combined into a single, well-sourced article on the subject. Chubbles (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- this does exist as an emerging genre. Guroadrunner (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesnt make it notable. --neonwhite user page talk 14:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This has nominated almost daily I'm feeling a strong sense of deja vu. Several groups in this genre such as NESkimos, Hadouken! (who are signed to an imprint of Atlantic Records and had a top 40 in the UK) and Colon Open Bracket have been written about in major music and video gaming magazines and websites. Hell, I found newspaper article about a group in this genre and talks about the genre.. Doc Strange (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't really describe a music genre. It uses the term in quotation marks. Alot of the bands claimed to belong to this genre have very little sources linking them to it. Remember the article needs enough sources to assert it's notability, not just the odd trivial mentioned here and there. --neonwhite user page talk 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dang, are you just trying to shoot down everyone assertions for notability to make a point? How in the deuce do you claim that the NESkimos don't have sources linking to the genre? or HORSE the Band? or Colon Open Bracket (who on a major label)? Doc Strange (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. Term appears to have fairly widespread usage. I just also have to say that I used to know the drummer from Colon Open Bracket personally and it's coincidental that someone should mention them in an AfD like this. The band's not yet notable enough for a Wikipedia article though despite being signed to a major label.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:37, 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. John254 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darva Conger

Non notable, otherwise now has sunk into total obscurity, even from a reality show that has only lasted 1 series. Jelly the Supermodel (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep or possibly merge into the show. Notable example of just how low the reality TV craze had sunk at the time, and there's certainly no shortage of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, consensus is generally that reality-show winners are notable, and notability does not expire.WaPo Besides, she's still generating type in 2007. (I think so, because AccessMyLibrary has suddenly started supplying Jan. 1, 2007 dates to Google News for all its older content, so it's hard to tell.) --Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Dhartung. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Dhartung. Additionally, the fact that she appeared on the cover of a internationally known publication, Playboy, increases my desire to keep this article. Dismas|^(talk) 06:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Subject is appalling, but exactly why it's notable. When civilization crumbles, people will want to know why, and if Wikipedia's servers are still operating, this will help. Could use better sources, though, not that they should be hard to find. Ψν^Psi_nu 14:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep agree with all above. Reality show winners are WP:N no matter how exploitative they are and how much they "what their life back" Doc Strange (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment, but those who are notable for nothing other than the show tends to be merged off, therefore rather than delete, I will settle for a merge. Jelly the Supermodel (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep, as Dhartung said, notability does not expire. However, her notability has weakened over time, and I cannot find any news article mentioning her after February 2006 (excluding those articles which just name-drop.) Perhaps this entry would be more appropriate if merged with the show. Clockster (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus was that there are insufficient sources to establish notability. Chick Bowen 05:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fatimah Adams

Non-notability per WP:BIO. Minor actor with 2 appearances on television shows.

This article is part of an ongoing COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt. COI-affected editors have been instructed to mention any affiliation with the firms involved when commenting. BlueAzure (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

delete as per nom. Both IMDB and Google show no additional notability. --Arcanios (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

keep Fatimah was a child star, known for her show "Kid's Break" on Fox Network, which she was on for six years (this is on her WP article). This is pre-Google or major internet. Although her credits on-line are this she's got celebrity. See wireimage.com, only known people get invited to these red carpets. Acording to WP:Bio celebrity is inclusive for validating an actor.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BlueAzure has been WP:Stalk me and the article I started along with MetaphorEnt and the clients they manage for weeks now. This is part of that WP:Stalk. See Mimi Fuenzalida Adf for more details.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per HollywoodFan1. Her IMDB Pro score shows that she is also well-known in the entertainment industry. This article needs to be expanded, and sources cited. TGreenburgPR (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep, appearing for a six years on a children's programme probably just pushes her over the line. The article needs a major copyedit though. Lankiveil (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Delete - WP:BIO states that absent significant coverage from outside sources (which is absent) the criteria is "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." Two minor appearances on TV does not fufil this, as nominator said. --Ybbor^Talk 22:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No evidence of any significant real-world impact or notice. WP is NOT IMDB Lite. --Calton | Talk 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The article contains no reliable sources at all. In closing the AfD, and noticing that HollywoodFan1 has voted above, I urge the closer to take into account

the COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt,
the fact that this article was created by LMA2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who is now indef blocked for abuse of sockpuppets,
the checkuser result at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LMA2007, showing that HollywoodFan1 (talk · contribs) and MetaphorEnt (talk · contribs) are the same in spite of assurances to the contrary.
the expectation that COI-affected editors who participate and vote in an AfD should declare their affiliation, which HollywoodFan1 has not,

These findings suggest the possibility that the nine accounts mentioned in the COI report are actually HollywoodFan1 plus eight sockpuppets. I don't see any multiple voting in this AfD but it does reduce the credibility of any assurances that could have been made by HollywoodFan1. It should make us wonder whether unsourced statements in the article are actually correct. EdJohnston (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I already voted above. Just wanted to bring to attention that I took it upon myself to add references that I found on Google to this article. That should suffice those voting "Delete" just because there was a lack of sources. I find this article to now pass WP:BIO. TGreenburgPR (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per Ybbor. The references there are for the two minor appearances, and I don't see any reference for the kid's show. -Lciaccio (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per the links provided by Clarityfiend. None of this information is even mentioned in the article, and I am about to fix that. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darren O'Neill

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Darren O'Neill

I initially thought this article should be kept since this boxer was considered for the Olympics, but with only three bouts so far, he is a far cry from any title. Delete without prejudice against a future recreation. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. He was ranked 8th in the world recently as an amateur[58] and has a fair number of mentions for winning tournaments.[59][60] Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice against future recreation. StaticElectric (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:23, 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 delete. However, since a redirect to Desktop Tower Defense seemed reasonable, I made one, and since there seemed to be no pressing reason to delete the underlying history beneath the redirect, I didn't. If anyone knows a reason to do so (such as a WP:BLP problem) let me know, and I will. Chick Bowen 05:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Preece

Subject does not satisfy notability guidelines, he is known only as the developer of a single popular Flash game. radimvice (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete : there is no compelling notability per WP:N to keep this article about this individual. Mh29255 (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
neutral: not very sure, would like more information. A mentioning in The Wall Street Journal indicates he's not just one of the thousands of flash game developers as the nom makes us think. --Arcanios (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep Wall Street Journal is surely a good source but is one mention enough?--Habashia (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Easy. Merge and redirect to Desktop Tower Defense. Problem solved.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, fails to satify criteria. Jelly the Supermodel (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, all but one of the sources provided do not meet WP:RS. Lankiveil (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Delete No sturdy sources to base it on. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep There are more sources out there to be found such as Salon and Forbes. It's a fun game too. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. What sources? The WSJ article is about the game, and the Forbes reference isn't from Forbes, it's a press release on their site. --Calton | Talk 13:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The WSJ talks about Mr Preece in some detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:36, 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 Snowball keep While the original article that was brought to afd would have probably been deleted, the rewritten version contains many sources, proves notability, and is 100% different than the original; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paramount hotel

Fails to satisfy WP:N Noetic Sage 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. Actually, this article is marked as a dab page, but it contains not a single relevant link.Keep per changes made by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk · contribs). --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete I would make it a speedy per A1 but it is a disambiguation page, nonetheless only contains one red link and a link to the "official site," and shoule be deleted as soon as possible. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Oh and the fact that the last edit was over an year ago makes me think that this page is unlikely to ever get expanded to anything more than its current form. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep the changes made to the article since the time of its nomination make it fall within the standards for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete I speedied it per A3. It had no content aside from the link to the site (the disambig template doesn't automatically make it a disambig, and isn't content; the only other stuff was that one sentence and the AFD template). Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed to Keep per rewrite. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment — Since the time it was nominated, another editor has added multiple non-trivial references and content. The article as it now exists I believe requires a new nomination and this one should be closed as being now irrelevant as the above discussion no longer applies to the article which now exists. Wjhonson (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep The article as it currently stands provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability Standard. Alansohn (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The current revision of the article seems to meet WP:N. matt91486 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per rewrite, several sources have now been added to assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep as adequately notable and referenced. Ford MF (talk) 23:20, 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 — the article now has valid sources and meets the WP:PORNBIO requirements.

[edit] Cindy Crawford (porn star)

Fails WP:PORNBIO. No reliable sources. No evidence that she "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award" or "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre." She reportedly appeared once on a fringe TV show, but PORNBIO requires multiple appearances in mainstream media. *** Crotalus *** 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. per this which seems to indicate she has a recurring role on Playboy TV. Also I was brought here via the posting suggesting that this articles link on the top of Cindy Crawford article was in some way wrong. An easy solution is to set up a disambig page for both. Benjiboi 02:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If you read the revised WP:BIO, there are specific additional criteria for porn stars and it mentions: "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award" (emphasis added). Eight nominations over a four year span would count in my book. Tabercil (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above; enough notability due to awards. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:58, 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. Hut 8.5 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CaliRock

Non-notable neologism with no easily-found Google hits (finds Spanish sites and Yahoo! Answers profiles). Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 02:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. company trying to promote self? —B o L 02:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
speedy Delete per nom, not a single way it meeds notability crieeria. Jelly the Supermodel (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Possible self promotion, and per WP:NOT#DIC. Tiptoety ^talk 04:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, as I hardly think it is in widespread usage. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:NN docboat (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete as made-up term and original research. I think this is beyond a dicdef, and in no way meets the speedy deletion criteria as suggested above, but as a term it is definitely not worth an encyclopedia article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete could have probably been speedily deleted.Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete: the ham in question is covered in snow; I think we've given this one enough time. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ham Day

I believe that this holiday is a non-notable subject that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Should it become notable in the future, this article can be recreated. Marlith 01:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User contested prod and hoax, non-notable ham day in britain, no refs or sources. —B o L 01:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've accidentaly also nominated this exact same article for deletion. I have merged the reason here. —B o L 01:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable Christmas celebration based from the Great Britain. —B o L 01:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete per nom. Obvious hoax. Tevildo (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Looks to me like an attempt to give Christmas a non-religious-sounding name. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment A Google search turned up one legitimate hit, and three blogspot hits. Probably notable, and could be redirected to Turkey Day. —B o L 02:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I originally PRODded this and my belief is that this is the author's protologism which he's attempting to "hoax" into the language. There are no hits in any dictionary I could find for any meaning remotely close to this, including Urban Dictionary. Doesn't meet notability guidelines nor is it verifiable from trusted sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, obvious silly hoax. Lankiveil (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Delete I smell a hoax. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete hoax for sure. docboat (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete yet another hoax Doc Strange (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as (nearly) patent nonsense and also per WP:SNOW.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Not really speediable. Dloh cierekim 14:52, 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 all. Sources indicating notability or verifiability were not provided. Participants in this debate are reminded that civility and brevity make for more effective rhetoric. Chick Bowen 05:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] University of the Philippines Astronomical Society

Non-notable school organization, which I'm quite sure has very little reliable sources to make it into a full-fledged article (I studied in UP and UP AstroSoc is only one of the mid-popular organizations in the university). seav (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding the other non-notable UP organizations that I can find:

UP Association of Computer Science Majors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
UP Chinese Student Association (UPCSA) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
UP Delta Lambda Sigma Sorority (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
UP Tomo-Kai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
UP Journalism Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There are over 400 student organizations in the Diliman campus of the university alone. Practically every one of them is non-notable and would have very little reliable third-party sources to extract information from. Possibly the only notable organization in the university is the Upsilon Sigma Phi fraternity, whose alumni are notable in politics, particularly Ferdinand Marcos and Benigno Aquino, Jr., that numerous articles have been written about this fraternity. --seav (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete all for lack of notability outside the University. Hey Seav, I think UP Sigma Rho is notable enough to deserve an article here. --Lenticel ^(talk) 15:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If there is something like a "List of student organizations of the University of the Philippines", merge it there. Otherwise, delete all. I am willing to change my vote on specific organizations if editors of the articles point out independent sources that talk about the organization. --Polaron | Talk 03:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete all There will possibly be a few articles for the most famous clubs at the most famous universities, but it would be very rare that such an article--or one on a local fraternity chapter--could be notable. if we need a specific guideline on fraternity chapters to prevent them, we can adopt one. Or we can do it here by practical consensus--I think it would take more than just notable alumni, but references to the chapter itself in significant non-university and non-fraternity sources. But whatever we think of them, for clubs like this, existing policy is quite sufficient to delete them. DGG (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- or at least merge. This opinion is for the titled article only. Somebody put quite a bit of work into this article. If the information in the article is correct, I'd be surprised if there is not published information in Tagalog or other language, which would be reliable source for us if it were available in English, possibly establishing general notability, though there would be the more complex question of what is notable for en.wikipedia. I see that the principal author was notified on user Talk. However, the timing of this AfD is unfortunate. Students at UP may easily be away from school at this time, and quite possibly completely away from computer access, so even attempting to notify the creator of the article before this AfD closes may be unsuccessful. Deleting the article before there is time for the creator to argue for inclusion, rescue the content for himself or herself, satisfy source requirements, and/or merge it to a more general article on UP organizations, seems rude. For what it's worth, User:Poldoga has not enabled e-mail. University of the Philippines, Diliman, according to the WP article, has over 21,000 students, a "mid-popular" organization might have quite a few members. --Abd (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Object to the multiple article consideration in one AfD, it can create a very substantial research burden, and, as mentioned, the reliable sources may be in another language, I don't know how we would know, without help, if there are significant references or not, Google may not cut it unless we search in the appropriate language(s). I'd say that much more time should be allowed, this AfD should be immediately dismissed without prejudice. Not all authors who edited the articles have been notified. I'm willing to volunteer to make extra efforts to contact those with interest in these topics (the authors or club contacts) so that they can prepare for another AfD when, I'd expect, it will come. There are six articles included here. Can I vote separately on each? If not, why not? Surely my opinion might vary from article to article. And I would ask those who have already voted, did you research each of the articles to confirm that there was no notability? Or did you assume that the information provided by the nominator was correct without confirmation? The nominator did not explain what research was done such that he or she could properly assert that the article "has very little reliable sources." How many does it take? DGG, if there is a general policy covering university clubs, where is it? --Abd (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for the concern for the articles Abd but I think we should delete them. First of all, the nom and I were students from UP Diliman so if the organizations were notable outside the University, we would have already saved the articles ourselves. Second, if there were any sources in Tagalog that covers the articles, chances are it is on the University's newspapers. In my opinion, only AstroSoc and the sorority have the strongest claims to notability. However, Astrosoc is usually mentioned on newspapers but only in passing as they provide astronomical instruments for people whenever an interesting phenomena occurs such as eclipses or approaching comets and the University is a good spot for stargazing as it has wide open spaces. The sorority is a very old organization but without any evidence of significant alumni or contributions outside the University, I think it should be deleted regardless of age. Although they didn't meet our notability criteria, they could be transwikied to the GFDL-licensed WikiPilipinas where the information would be preserved.

By the way, I think this is the list that Polaron wants the articles be merged to.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete articles, list their names (if haven't) to List of UP Diliman student organizations. If there were any U.P. student orgs that should have separate articles, it might be the different frats and their school paper, plus few more (like their theater guild) , for these orgs, none of them is notable. --Howard the Duck 11:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Student clubs at a single school are virtually never notable enough for an article, and I see no exceptions here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Unless the student organizations has reached fame or notoriety on the same level as, sa, yhe Oxford Union or the Hasty Pudding Club (at least, on the national/Philippine level, if not internationally), these student orgs don't deserve their own Wikipedia article...for now. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I'd suggest a different solution than deletion. Deletion makes the content inaccessible to any but admins. If, instead, the content of each article is deleted and the article redirected to the list, that content is still in history, Talk is preserved, and anyone can then retrieve content and re-use it where appropriate, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere. These were not frivolous articles. If this AfD closes, and the closing admin deletes the articles, who, then, can help with retrieving whatever content might be worth saving, including making sure that those clubs are listed in the campus org article, with links? If redirection is used, instead, anyone could do that, at leisure, by looking at article History. The fact of redirection would be noted in the closing statement here, and thus some member of the Astronomy club who realizes the article has disappeared may be able to find it. If the decision is delete, here, I'd personally appreciate notice to allow at least a few days to help preserve content; if the closing admin decides on redirection as a solution, I'd be willing to do the work. And, frankly, what would have happened if those proposing this AfD had simply done what I'm suggesting. Far more efficient than debating it! --Abd (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If the contents get deleted eventually, any member of the UP AstoSoc can later contact an admin to have the contents retrieved for their perusal. As for this AfD debate, what is being discussed here is whether or not these student organizations deserve their own Wikipedia articles under the notability guidelines, not whether the members of these organizations will be able to access the contents of the articles subject under this AfD debate. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment My concern is efficiency and fairness. Redirection of the articles could have been done by the nominator, avoiding this entire discussion unless someone was watching the articles and objected. That's efficient. What we are doing here is debating what may be an entirely moot point. If they are redirected and nobody objects, we are home free, unless someone removes the redirection, in which case the one who did the redirection would routinely have the article watchlisted and could then deal with it one-on-one, requesting reliable source to establish notability, or with wider discussion (RFC), or with AfD (or beyond, if there is a serious dispute). This process here has wasted serious time. I've seen some admins start to suggest redirection in AfDs, which avoids the whole deletionist/inclusionist/notability debate. Disk space is not an issue. Admin time and editor time is an issue. Think an article isn't notable? Redirect it. You just might be done. It takes less time than filing an AfD, and you don't have to notify anyone. Notification to the author is (normally) automatic, through watchlist. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AFDs exist for reason. If you don't want AFDs and just allow people to redirect like hell, place an MFD tag on AFD (oh, the irony! LOL). --Howard the Duck 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to use my userspace as a temporary home (like for a month) if this article is deleted for UPAS members to retrieve info relevant to them. --Howard the Duck 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment There is not just one article here, and that so many seem to be focused on the one article is a piece of evidence for my point that combining articles for AfD muddies the waters. Someone might respond, "But we are establishing a precedent, i.e., if the Astronomy club isn't notable, neither are the others. No. AfDs establish no precedent or effective guideline whatever, the guidelines are clear about that. There is too much participation bias. Want to establish precedent, work on the policies and guidelines, or take something to arbitration, if ArbComm will accept it. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Then place it one page, it's not that hard, if no one from the org wants to retrieve it after a month, it can be speedily deleted. If they do appear after a month, they can ask the help of an admin. It's really not that hard, especially if they really came from that org since they have a valid reason. --Howard the Duck 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would have simply blanked and redirected the pages myself, but the AfD notice asks that pages not be blanked pending the AfD outcome. What I would have done is to explain what I was doing in the Talk on the original pages, replace the content with a redirect, and then also place an explanation (one for the entire lot of articles) on Talk for the target page, showing a permanent reference to History of the last rev for each page before redirect. Same thing here, I'd put the ref. This would effectively delete the article, but leave it accessible for someone who is actively looking for it, and making it easy to either recover content or challenge the notability decision. And none of this requires administrator intervention, any user can do this, and any user can undo it; if users were sufficiently motivated to restore the article, presumably they would also be prepared to defend the article with some knowledge in a real Afd, i.e., one contested by knowledgeable parties, including, say, having ability to find notability proof in Tagalog, if it exists. Some of those voting here are UP Dilman students, but this does not necessarily qualify them to make ad hoc notability decisions, "I never heard of it," or "It wasn't important to me," are arguments to be avoided in notability decisions. Anyway, if admin closing this permits, I'd do the work, it's actually less work than dealing with an AfD.--Abd (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You see, if you think an article doesn't satisfy the notability criteria, it's perfectly legal, and encouraged, to use the AFD system. We have the system already, so why not use it?

"I never heard of it" is a perfectly valid reason for AFD since it'll give you an idea of it's notability, especially if the person saying it actually lives in the place of the subject -- in case, the Philippines.

Now, if these 5 orgs get mainstream media sources (try Google News), then they can be saved. But if they won't, then it's off the AFD. Blanking and redirecting may not be helpful either, especially if the article you're redirecting to is remotely related to the blanked article. I'd rather have a red-link than make me think "Why does this redirect here?" --Howard the Duck 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's legal to use AfD and often a huge waste of time and no real benefit to the project. It should remain legal, but admins are perfectly free to close premature AfDs. Why debate something with no real opposition? (I'm opposed to precipitate deletion of articles that *might* be able to be reliably sourced, and nothing here, so far, rules that out. It would be ruled out if those with access to the reasonable sources were participating and failed. I have no specific opinion on whether or not clubs like this should have their own articles; it's at the edge of notability from my point of view).

)As to "I never heard of it," see WP:IDONTKNOWIT. This particular argument is so bad that I'm astonished it was advanced. UP Dilman is a huge campus, and a club could, in fact, be quite notable (on or off-campus) with a majority of students not knowing about it, not to mention one or two. "Living in the Philippines?" Let's see, I live in the U.S., is my personal lack of knowledge of a topic's notability evidence of anything? U.S. population, 304 million, Philippines, 87 million. Is this difference significant?

As to Google News, I found reference to the organization from a Philippines English source. Not currently googleable because the news archive was gone. I found it in the Wayback Machine and corrected the link in the article. That alone would not establish notability, but my point is that there may be quite a bit about this organization that would satisfy WP:RS, but not so easy to find if one does not know what to look for, even in English (the Wayback Machine is not yet searchable for text), but I'm even more concerned that there may be newspaper accounts in Tagalog that someone in Dilman could find, accounts that, if in a U.S. newspaper, would satisfy us as to notability. I am *not* claiming that these clubs are notable, only that we need better and more leisurely process to determine it. What's the rush? Why should we waste time on an AfD when the basic work could have been done with no fuss at all, and fuss later *only* if someone actually disagreed. The blank and redirect (or just redirect, why blank?) option in this case, for all these articles, is easy, it would be a redirect to a list of UP Dilman campus organizations (and I'd have a note on the Talk page briefly noting that this specific series of articles were redirected to that list based on apparent lack of notability, with an explanation of what to do if one disagreed). I'm thinking ahead to the encyclopedia truly being an encyclopedia for the world, in English, which is increasingly an international language, and current process will not come even close to cutting that particular mustard. It's far too inefficient and requires too much admin time (or, on the other hand, encourages snap judgments by overworked administrators).--Abd (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment'. There are over a hundred student organizations in UP Diliman, and not every organization is well known outside the University, even on the level of Metro Manila (i.e. the National Capital Region). AFAIK, some of these have existed even before Wikipedia came to being (I remember being asked to join the Tomo-Kai in the late 90s), so I don't know how many years do you intend to wait for one such newspaper report in Tagalog to come up (unless it's a press release from a racy tabloid that is more liberal in accepting paid press releases). Keep, no. Merge, yes or no. Delete, yes, unless each org gets a more substantial footing. --- Tito Pao (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

comment Our country has both Filipino and English as offical languages. If there are reliable sources for these articles, they would be printed in leading broadsheets which are in English. These papers also have online archives. I'm in Diliman and the only papers that in Tagalog here are tabloids and one of our University papers. Tabloids do not entertain info about clubs unless you pay them in the classified ads or as Titopao said, press releases and Univ. papers are not independent sources. I'm also slightly offended on your comment that the majority of UP students don't know their own organizations. We might be a developing country but our communication facilities are not primitive. If there are any events inside UP, at least two Univ. papers (not counting the college based ones)are there to report it. The students also have online access both free and non-free inside the campus. Every semester there is a day that are dedicated to these clubs where they held events and seminars. Last time I checked students are required to attend these events. As I said earlier if you bothered reading my first comment, there's WikiPilipinas which deals in everything Filipino. How many UP students do you want to tell you that these clubs are not notable? The articles could be saved there but they have no place in Wikipedia. As for the redirects, it is a fuss. chances are these redirects would be orphaned and would bloat RfD and create stress for the overworked admins. It will also set a bad precedence in redirects for Univeristy related clubs. Should all clubs redirect to their school article? If not what makes UP special? Should we create dab page for these redirects when they pertain to multiple Universities?

Actually you're the only one who bloated this discussion and most of the people here are simply countering your comments--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, very well said. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Hmph! Be that way. Look, if you think my comments out of place, why bother countering them? Surely the closing admin will see through it. However, I do think I've raised substantial issues. It's a bit frustrating that commenters who seem to be "countering" my comments -- aren't we trying to cooperate in building the project? -- don't seem to be dealing with the facts of this situation. The article authors are absent; those who actually care about the topic are quite possibly away from internet access at this point. With a little effort, I found one newspaper mention of the Astronomy club, just because it happened to have been Wayback archived, and I fixed the link in the article. If the authors or other interested persons can't establish notability, it's fine to delete the articles, but it looks to me like these articles were created in good faith (at least the Astronomy club one, I haven't looked in detail at the others). What's the hurry? Running out of disk space? AfDs do *not* set precedent, participation is far too spotty for that. In this case the redirect would be to a list of clubs on that campus, and, yes, it seems reasonable to me to have a subpage of an article on a University to have a list of campus organizations with links. The details don't generally need to be on Wikipedia *unless* a club becomes notable, and, right now, we have no way to determine that. If in a reasonable time -- which is not merely a week or two -- and after notability is challenged, no notability appears, then it becomes reasonable to delete the articles.

However, I'm suggesting that it is far more efficient to simply redirect all these articles. It could have been done by anyone, the nominator could have spared all of us this conversation by just doing it, and, if nobody appeared to defend the articles, it would have been done. If there were no appropriate place to redirect the articles, a page could be created in WP space that says "The topic of the article from which this was redirected was considered not sufficiently notable by an editor for Wikipedia to remain. The original article may be accessed (process description) and recovered; however, an editor recovering the article should be prepared to defend notability, see (Policies and Guidelines). I'm finding that merge is increasingly being done with AfDs. It's far less drastic than deletion, which wastes, and continues to waste, admin time. And anyone can do it.

You know what wastes time? A person who insists on saving an article he doesn't even have a clue what it is, plus not to mention what I did a few minutes ago undoing unnecessary addition of a copyrighted logo for decorative purposes. Admins are selected for several reasons, and one of those is the handle deletion discussions. If they don't want to do janitorial work, 1) don't be an admin, or 2) everyone should be able to delete articles. If you hate AFD, don't comment on AFDs. If you question the wisdom of AFD, why bother participating? You don't speak for everybody, and not everyone wants to redirect and create a bigger mess. Imagine the mess if the redirect article turns out not to be related to the article it is redirecting. What should we do? Of course a deletion discussion, which would've been done earlier. Now that's wasting time. --Howard the Duck 13:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I find it out of place for a high school student to comment on college-level club politics, although I think this now necessary seeing how much controversy this is generating. The question here hinges on two things: one, the level of notability of the organization and two, the question of whether or not that notability satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines on such. If notability guidelines (emphasizing the word guidelines) are by their nature subjective, then it is up to said editor to establish that notability for the sake of that article. Articles are established many times because of an editor's belief that topic is sufficiently notable for the sake of Wikipedia, and many times these "conflicts of interest" from other editors who do not believe that these articles are notable enough (whether empirically or otherwise) degenerate into AFDs like this one. Conceded that it would be very hard to make a concrete standard for notability as different people have different standards for it, but it should be the responsibility of editors to establish notability where others cannot, rather than harp on the non-notability of the article in question in an AFD like this one. --Sky Harbor 02:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment There is no substantial controversy over the notability of these clubs; someone who thinks there is hasn't been watching closely. What is in controversy is process; that is, those who *might* have the information needed to establish notability are not participating and probably don't even know this is happening. Yes, it is up to the original editors -- or anyone who steps up to the plate -- to establish notability; however, it's common to allow some substantial time for that to take place. What's the rush? If these articles were about blatantly non-notable subjects, fine, though it would then not be necessary to AfD. Blatantly non-notable material can be deleted on sight. If the articles in question were redirected, the *effect* of deletion would be accomplished, but these edits would show up on the watchlists of any prior editor who happened to look, and an explanation of what happened to the pages could be placed in Talk for the redirected pages, it would likewise show up on watchlists. Why are we spending energy debating the deletion of marginal topics? I can say why I'm here, I'm concerned with process and I dislike trashing someone's work without giving them a fair chance to establish its value to the project, to the "sum of all human knowledge." I have a *small* evidence of notability for the Astronomy Club, I found with a little search, but that was only in English. (I fixed the link in the article.) I certainly can't search in Tagalog or Chinese. The club itself might have a collection of newspaper clippings. Or not. But, enough. --Abd (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think the text in the articles came from the orgs themselves, ergo, they'll have a copy of it. It looks like a generic "About us" section in a website. Again, if they'll need inquiry, they can ask an admin or actually anyone for access on deleted history. It's not that hard. --Howard the Duck 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone follows through on that process, and perhaps they are unaware of how to do it in the first place. We can't presume everyone is a trained Wikipedian right off the bat. --Sky Harbor 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

They can re-create the article then someone will speedily-delete it, then there'll be communication between the parties, then it can be explained about the deletion discussions. --Howard the Duck 03:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. As an alumni of the said university and as one who compiled a list of student organizations before (see [61]), I will stand by my assertion that almost all of these 400+ organizations are not notable enough for Wikipedia and that finding WP:RS enough to create a full-fledged article (as opposed to a list entry) is not feasible. So my reason for nominating is simply not because I think they are not notable enough but also because they won't have enough reliable sources. --seav (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per DGG. Doctorfluffy (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lets be nice

Bringing this here for a procedural discussion. It was initially speedied under slightly dubious circumstances — a user tagged the band with a {{prod}}, re-added the prod after it was removed, and then tagged the album A7 (which doesn't apply to albums blah blah blah); an admin then deleted it in good faith on the grounds that the band was about to be deleted via prod. Bringing it here as a procedural nom to unravel the can of worms before it escalates; generally, albums by notable artists are automatically notable, but should it apply in a case like this where the artist is very borderline? (IMO they do pass WP:N, but on the grounds of one song which was on the "Scream" soundtrack.) Procedural nom, so I abstain. — iridescent 01:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See, it never looked like that before the last time I saw it. Review the band which had a prod tag but, as was the case with this subject, saw me back and forth due to the removal of the templates. ^Dlae│_here 22:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it not better that it has been improved? I have also worked on the band's article a little, and intend to a little further. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article looks much better than when I originally nominated it for deletion. Nice work. ^Dlae│_here 11:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep but maybe rename after the one successful song of the album. The article on the band itself is currently tagged for notability but not listed for deletion. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I have cleaned it up- references are hard to come by, as this was released pre-Internet-boom, but I still found a review on what claims to be the "oldest music review site on the net" (well, the link was already in the article...) and so I have cited the fact reviews were positive, and I have found citations for the appearances of the songs on other albums. Text has been cleaned up, I have categorised, added an infobox, etc. Notable album by a notable band, released by a notable label. J Milburn (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable album by a notable band on the largest independently owned record label in the US which had released the first Nine Inch Nails album Doc Strange (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep looks fine to me--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:00, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep since sourcing has been done. Wizardman 16:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harriet Eddy Middle School

No assertion of notability per WP:N and no verifiability per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Shiva_eVolved 19:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Jelly the Supermodel (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete nothing notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Re-direct to Elk Grove Unified School District - Unless it is found to be more notable than the average middle school, standard practise as re-directs are cheap. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete and listify in district. No content to merge. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Re-direct to Elk Grove Unified School District as per Chris; article doesn't meet WP:N. Noroton (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Re-direct to Elk Grove Unified School District Victuallers (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, Blue Ribbon School, plenty of independent sources available for expansion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep article now asserts notability and has actual content. As well, its blue ribbon status puts it in the class of elementary schools that should be kept as standalone articles, imho. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep as modified, the article provides clear claims of notability, particularly in terms of its recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, supported by appropriate sources to establish notability. Additional sources are listed in the article and should be further integrated into the text of the article. Alansohn (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Comments by first-time contributors or single-purpose accounts have been given low weighting. A subsequent redirect to squeegee or mop might be appropriate, but as for which, I leave to editor discretion. A note that original research is not permitted on wiktionary, either. Neıl ☎ 15:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spunga

Disputed PROD. Non-notable and unverified neologism. Only reference is a blog ~~& suspect it is WP:MADEUP~~ nancy ^(talk) 22:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Israeli neologism, looks like a squeegee on a stick to me. EDIT After reading the article again, I should add that Wikipedia is not a guide to washing floors. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Surprisingly enough, this one looks real. A Google search for "israel sponga" turns up a number of references to the term; a Google Groups search turned up a few hits from 1997, suggesting that it isn't a particularly new term. I don't know where to look for reliable sources documenting the practice, but I suspect that someone more familiar with the culture may have an easier time finding sources than I. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Although it is true that there are links, these are all blogs. I am uncertain if this demonstrated notability. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- If nothing else, it suggests that this term is more than just a neologism. Do remember that Israel isn't an English-speaking country, so the hits we're seeing are mainly from English-speaking visitors to the country. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I did some more digging and have found that sponga is Esperanto for spongy[62] (and spongo is Esperanto for sponge) so there does seem to be a verifiable, if somewhat tenuous, link between the word and the act of cleaning however as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and as all other references are blogs, my inclination is still to delete. nancy ^(talk) 07:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Remember that this is an Israeli cultural artifact - "spunga" or "sponga" is an approximate rendering of a Hebrew term into English. The Esperanto connection is probably irrelevant. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Agreed, nothing to do with Esperanto. The word "sponge" is originally Greek and appears in numerous languages. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nancy - if you ever traveled to Israel you would know that Spunga is a valid term for the special way Israelis clean/wash floors. Just because YOU never heard of it doesn't invalidate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poodwahr (talk • contribs) 14:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  - There are many special and nonnotable things done in Israel. If you can provide a some sources and/or a good explination as to why this particular method of washing the floor is notable, then this article can be kept. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not a squeegee ----- the spunga actually employes a shmata (rag) which is cleverly wound around the bottom of the spunga in a figure 8 fashion. (A squeegee only employes the rubber end.) This shmata soaks up the soapy water that was flung on the floor and it both scrubs as well as absorbs the water. Very different from a squeegee.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.223.97 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 December 2007 — 99.226.223.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment I do not think this description matches the object pictured in the image in the article, although perhaps my eyes are not so good. And regardless of how clever this may be, I still do not see how it is notable. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Why is it notable? Because it is the only way that all Israeli's wash floors. And it is unusual in that I'm reasonable certain that none of the people involved in this discussion have ever used a spunga, being that you have never cleaned a floor in Israel. It is a far more effective way to clean because the mop is not being reinserted in dirty water. The entry should certainly remain.Myteemouse (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Unfortunately Nick does not comprehend the special way 6 million people wash the floors in their residences in Israel. This is unique in the world as far as I can tell having traveled to over 100 countries (how may have you been to?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.223.97 (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC) — 99.226.223.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    - My personal travel history is irrelevant to the points I have made in this discussion. I would politely request that you do not imply that I am ignorant just because you presume I haven't traveled to X number of countries and absorbed Y number of minor details about those cultures. Thanks, --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    - Not ignorant Nick, just unfamiliar with the practices in foreign countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.223.97 (talk • contribs) 2007-12-26T19:32:23 — 99.226.223.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Would it be possible to source in Hebrew? At present I'm leaning either "weak delete" (no prejudice) or "wiktionary". --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete First, it looks like some sort of Swiffer to me; I'm not trying being ignorant when I say this, but the article consists of nothing more than a description of what a Spunga is. The rest is an unreferenced assertion of the item's popularity, and a how-to manual. I'd suggest recreating it if valid sources pop up. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The photographs are just items used when you spunga, which is a cleaning method. Tile floors, furniture removed, splash a whole lot of water everywhere, squeegee/mop it outside. As noted, however, sources are a problem. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete entirely non-notable, could perhaps be introduced into an article of Israeli interest, but even there as a very minor footnote of low interest. Certainly not worth an article in Mainspace. docboat (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I am confused; your vote says keep, but your reasoning says delete. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  - It was vandalized by 99.226.223.97 (talk · contribs). I've reverted the vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Mop. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Mop. No decent references available in Hebrew either. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
KeepAll comment above are from contributors who really don't know anything about spunga and are postulating. Truth be known spunga is a very common term for anyone that has spent more than 1 week in Israel. I doubt the above contibutors have ever ventured to that part of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.223.97 (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC) — 99.226.223.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep This is a very important instrument for cleaning; if it is utilized by an entire country that certainly makes it more notable than a DustBuster which has its own page, without any sources, without any pictures. This is an item that can be purchased in most local convenience stores, while a mop cannot be found in any store in Israel (I've been living in Israel for 8 years). This item is so significant that houses and apartments are designed to facilitate its use. These arguments lead to the obvious conclusion that spunga is a necessity for Mainspace.17:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myteemouse (talk • contribs)
Merge or Redirect to Squeegee (rather than Mop). The word may be genuine, but I don't think that one particular regional word for an everyday activity (cleaning the floor), or for the implement used for it, is notable in itself; especially when the implement is already covered in an existing article. We don't have an article on "hoovering" as distinct from Vacuum cleaner, after all. Tevildo (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Hoovering is the same as vacuuming ... But SPUNGAING is very different from SQUEEGEEING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poodwahr (talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No decent sources available. Article is original research. Clearly a non-notable variation. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Everyone who is asking for the entry to be deleted is ignorant of the spunga. The reason the entry was made in the first place is because I couldn't find a reference for spunga on Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.97.254 (talk • contribs)
Redirect to Squeegee. No point in having articles about the exact same thing in another language.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Spunga is NOT the same as squeegee!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.97.254 (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. You've already said that . . . (and already !voted) . . . at least once. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. Sometimes one has repeat what they said (wrote) Because it falls on deaf ears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.97.254 (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Kinda like Wikipedia:Policies. Please see the one concerning verifiability and the one concerning original research. Don't forget the one on civility. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Thank your for your comments. 1) this is verifiable but picking up the phone and randomly calling any home in Israel (011-972-2-xxx-xxx) and asking the question yourself. 2) this is NOT original research, I didn't make anything up here, just documenting what exists. 3) It is not our custom to turn the other cheek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.97.254 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - note that the only "source" provided specifically describes the item as "a big squeegee for doing 'sponga' or floor mopping." [63] --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I find it amusing that you put some much of your energies battling against one little word!! You must be great in court - I'd want you to represent me any day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.97.254 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete admitted OR, Israeli neologism per NickPenguin. No need to merge to mop or squeege and clutter up those articles with non-notable country-specific words. 'Sponga' is merely a rag wrapped around a squeegy - a cheap way to replicate a mop. --Shuki (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep I think the article says that spunga is a method of cleaning and includes design of buildings etc. and the rag just seems to be used to dry the wet floor after the squeegee-like thing is used. This seems to be unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myteemouse (talk • contribs)

Please stop making multiple !votes. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Myteemouse is correct -- architectural schools in Israel have course that teaches one how to design a building or dwelling to accomodate the spunga hole so that the water pouring through the hole does not interfere with other residences. Additionally dwelling are designed to slope gently towards the spunga hole (know in hebrew as khor spunga). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.97.254 (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment There have been a lot of keep votes with claims similar to this one, mostly from anonymous users. If anyone has some sources to support these claims, then please provide them in a timely manner. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Note the rabbinic discourse related to spunga - especially this year of "shmita" Shut She'eilat Shlomo - Questions of Jewish Law

A talk given after lunch at the yeshiva -

"Sponga" during Shemitta

Q: Is it permissible to do "sponga" (cleaning the floor by pouring a bucket of water on the floor, swishing it around with a cloth on a squeegee and pushing the water into holes in the floor or outside. It is a popular way to clean one's home in Israel because most houses have stone floors) and push the water onto the ground outside during the Shemitta year?

A: It is permissible for various reasons:

1. The prohibition of watering the ground during the Shemitta year is a rabbinic prohibition. This is unlike watering the ground on Shabbat and Yom Tov which is a Torah prohibition (a sub-labor [toladah] of "Zore'a – seeding"). It is therefore forbidden on Shabbat and Yom Tov to wash one's hands over the ground. One must be especially careful on Sukkot. During the Shemittah year, however, watering is only a rabbinic prohibition.

2. According to the majority of Rishonim (early authorities), observing Shemittah nowadays is a rabbinic mitzvah.

3. Watering the ground by pushing the water from "sponga" is an "unintended act which is not beneficial to him," since one does not want to water the ground or violate Shemittah, but needs some place to put the water.

4. Some people have pipes on their porch which brings the water to the ground. If the water travels through the pipe onto the ground it is called a "grama" – an indirect act.

Since the act is far from a Torah prohibition and there are extenuating circumstances, it is permissible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.97.254 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making multiple !votes. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is a link to the article the above excerpt came from: http://www.ou.org/shabbat_shalom/article/aviner_parashat_shemot_5768/#shutshlomo --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, nobody denies the term is _genuine_. The question is whether or not it's _notable_. See WP:DICT. Tevildo (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Seems notable to a lot of people, and I'd hate to see the state of the country without it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.223.97 (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — 99.226.223.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It is so non-notable that, after 10 days of discussion, there is still not a single reliable source supporting this article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It is so notable that the discussion here is significant. Unfortunately Evb must live in a gated community with little knowledge of the outside world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.97.254 (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Sponja (nut Spunga) is a very well known term in Hebrew. Google ספונג'ה and see how many hits you get. The term is used for the specific method of using a rag at the end of the squeegee. It also has a cultural connotation, as a "lowly" form of cleaning. Yet, the term does not even have an article on the Hebrew wikipedia, so I believe it should be moved to Wiktionary or deleted. 88.134.146.103 (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)— 88.134.146.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The anglicised spelling is indeed SPUNGA (not sponja). It may also belong in the Hebrew wiki, but given the the majority of people living in Israel speak English and many do not speak Hebrew, it should cetainly remain here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poodwahr (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Google "sponja" together with "cleaning" and you'll find many results, for example this [64]; Google "spunga" with "cleaning" and you'll find only wikipedia. I'm an Israeli by birth, and for a while even I wasn't sure what you're talking about. 88.134.146.103 (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)— 88.134.146.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Now I see that 'sponga' is also a spelling that is used in english (though it's incorrect as far as pronunciation goes). Here's a few more refs: [65], [66].88.134.146.103 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)— 88.134.146.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Merge and redirect. No sources cited to verify claimed notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How many sources are needed - the article provides one external link and one reference, and looking here in the discussions there are countless sources.Gustoad (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) — Gustoad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is more a case of quality than quantity. The issue with the cited sources is that they do not meet Wikipedia's criteria of verifiability as they are blogs or other similar web-content. nancy ^(talk) 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Mop. The object in question is clearly not a squeegee (a pusher of water) but a form of mop (an absorber of water). It also seems to have only modest notability, at best. The basic information about the device, though, certainly seems worthy of preservation within the discussion of mops, even with only modest sourcing. Tim Ross·^talk 16:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Ask an Israeli where to buy a mop, and she'll tell you "In America". Ask her where to buy a spunga and she'll point you to the corner makolet (variety store). Spunga is not mop and mop is not spunga --- sorry - if the glove don't fit you must acquit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.223.97 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC) — 99.226.223.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Again, please stop making multiple !votes. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep user Evb user nancy and other such uninformed users - stick to your areas of expertise please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leahmalkag (talk • contribs) — Leahmalkag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
transwiki to http://www.wiktionary.org/, where original research is allowed. The content of the article appears to be original research, not derived from verifiable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See below. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish national identity

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Scottish national identity

Articles for deletion/Scottish national identity (2nd nomination)

Seems to be a load of original research. We don't have articles on English national identity, Irish national identity, French national identity, Italian national identity, German national identity or Polish national identity - so why should we have this? h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. The article has a few problems, but I don't believe that any of them are worthy of deletion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for deletion. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. That these other articles do not exist is simply a reflection that these peoples are already independent. A more adequate comparison would be Distinct society. Note that this intervention does not in any way reflect my personal political convictions about the status of either Quebec or Scotland. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is part of an essay and is not a policy or guideline. Some content here could perhaps be merged but I don't think it deserves a stand-alone article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said the last time, there are no shortage of sources to create the article from. As well as the predigested summary in Lynch I mentioned the last time, a couple of minutes' work found: Broun et al (eds), Image and identity: the making and re-making of Scotland through the ages; Broun, The Irish Identity of the Kingdom of the Scots; Broun, "Dunkeld and the making of Scottish identity"; Broun, Scottish Independence and the Idea of Britain; and that's just part of only one academic's efforts on the subject. There are rooms-full of books and papers and proceedings on this topic: try googling this (web site:ac.uk), or this (books). Far from everything is relevant, but most is. Unlike the made-up, blood and soil nonsense in "Scottish people", this is a genuine topic and is the subject of a number of advanced academic courses. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it now, I withdraw this nomination per the existence of multiple sources, and the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is indeed a bad argument.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:06, 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 nomination withdrawn. –Pomte 08:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tha Carter III: The Leak

Album by Lil Wayne. Was prevoiusly prodded, but prod was contested. It was previously thought to be an album created from leaked material for his upcoming album, Tha Carter III, but now it has turned out to be a complete hoax [67]. Also, neither Lil Wayne, Cash Money, nor Universal have stated anything about the album or the release date of December 18. The album has not been available for pre-order at any online store.Admc2006 (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC) I would like to withdraw my nomination for deletion as the album has been released, just as an EP and under a different title. Admc2006 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The album wasn't a hoax, Lil Wayne confirmed it, but, most likely it will not be coming out. —Bruce Wayne of the Rap Game (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep the page but update the information. Remove from Lil Wayne album templates. - Stoph (talk) 22:23, 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) 04:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. From the discussion it is either a hoax or not likely to happen. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If it does happen, recreate it; right now there isn't enough evidence for the article to remain. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

THE LEAK HAS BEEN RELEASED! Original Release Date: December 25, 2007 The album is real, so this article should not be deleted Only the name of the album should be changed. The carter III part should be removed Rain89nl (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea, it was released as an EP on some online music stores with 5 tracks under Cash Money. Maybe just change the name and change the info saying what it was originally planned to be. Don't care either way. Here's some more info--Rebel Without a Pause (talk) 01:26, 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 It's been three weeks and the article hasn't been improved. Wizardman 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franco Arabic

Previously suggested deletion as part of the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldo Franco Arabic, closing admin suggested listing separately to gain consensus on the status of this article. Most of the references are junk that don't mention Franco Arabic, the one that did [68] doesn't give any of the information in the article, and isn't clear if it's referring to a separate genre or just musicians from the former French North Africa. I couldn't find other reliable references in a web search. Rigadoun (talk) 05:27, 11 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) 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. A quick Google search for "franco arabic" music shows few hits about the genre, and those few are from blogs, Last.fm, and Wikipedia (and copies thereof). Fails WP:V. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Current sources leave much to be desired, but googling en français seems to yield better results. Mykej (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I get this. I don't see anything related to music on the first few pages, other than the last.fm link. Which sites are you referring to? Rigadoun (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Sorry, you probably mean this (searching for "franco-arabe" musique). All I see is a version of "Aime Moi" by Kamel Shadi that is marked as "Franco-arabe" as opposed to other ones, without an indication of what this means (he isn't mentioned in this article, so I don't know if it's relevant), and a few sites that talk about Franco-Arabic musicians as in they come from former French North Africa but not in any way implying that that is a musical genre, not that I can see anyway, and then others about language mixture, tangential to music. Can you point out a site that seems relevant, or corroborates the information in the article? Rigadoun (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, I meant franco arabe musique, but I wasn't very clear. Searching without quotes or the dash returned many, many hits, although google's wide drift net pulled in many non-music articles. However, many of the articles were about music, or were videos, links to mp3s, record label pages, etc. I still think this article needs work, but I see real potential. As a side note, the Musique algérienne article looks like it could have a few bits to add to this article. Some of the other "see also"s on Musique arabe probably could too. I read french too slowly to check them all out now, but a francophone editor could probably help greatly with the whole discussion. Mykej (talk) 18:51, 17 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) 04:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete, while there seems to be intermittent use of this term on blogs and the like, I can't see any definition of the term by a WP:RS. Lankiveil (talk) 05:16, 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, Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. As far as I can tell, the term Franco Arabic has never been associated with the music of Dalida. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:50, 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. Badly needs independent sources; it should be considered again if it does not get them. Chick Bowen 05:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birdwatchers' Field Club of Bangalore

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Birdwatchers' Field Club of Bangalore

Non-notable bird watching group. Ridernyc (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

delete as article creator (although in a bygone era when WP:NOTE did not exist) ! Shyamal (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete this site is not an advert to promote clubs. Jelly the Supermodel (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can this user vote? No contributions to WP other than a few deletion demands. Suspect sock-puppet.212.71.37.74 (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. We have several articles on Bird Watching Societies. See Category:Ornithological organizations. This article is sourced and it does not particularly read like an advert. If it did read like an advert, it should be fixed, not deleted. I would however like to see something of its significance in India. --Bduke (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Legitimate notable organization. Sensiblekid (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The subject is significant enough for an article. -
Rustam
06:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. An advert, not an article. Not the slightest sign of any real-world impact or notice. --Calton | Talk 13:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. So which unreal world does Bangalore belong to? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This article does read a bit like an advert. Notability for the club isn't established, and it appears to be a local club for the Bangalore area. "[non-commercial] Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Bangalore has a population of about 6.5 million, which is larger than the population of many countries. The Bangalore area extends beyond the city so must have an even larger population. I don't think you can call this an organisation whose activities are "local in scope". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Whilst perhaps not extremely notable, I say keep, although the article could certainly use copy-editing. Alloranleon (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. east.718 at 15:44, January 6, 2008

[edit] Courtenay Semel

Has appeared in one reality TV show. Her other claim to fame are the rumors in blogs and gossip columns about her supposed lesbian relationship with Linsday Lohan. Although she churns up a nice amount of Ghits due to this rumor, I don't think that it has passed the notability standard for Wikipedia. None of the sources are Reliable Sources. Additionally, according to WP:BLP1E, people notable for one event do not pass the WP:NOTABLE standard. And of course, as this is a living person, the strict standard of WP:BLP should apply. brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages per the discussion below and per WP:NOTINHERITED:

--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep/Redirect~~. The gossip should, of course, be removed from the article, but that is a recent thing. The article itself has existed since 19 September 2005, long before this blog silliness. She was also in the Bruce Willis film Hudson Hawk, and a film called Sweetie Pie with Paris Hilton which doesn't have an article. This puts her on par with many of the other stubs for cast of Filthy Rich: Cattle Drive. If this isn't good enough, then redirect to Terry Semel, where the current content of the article already exists. Gimmetrow 02:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Her acting career alone isn't enough to make her notable as an actor. She never had any major roles in any film. But a merge/redirect to her father makes sense. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect. If she's notable, so is everyone who's gotten their 15 minutes. Unschool (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Take a look at the rest of the cast of Filthy Rich: Cattle Drive; only one looks notable (excepting the nobility=notability argument). The rest are about as notable as the one with the deleted article. In my opinion, the show article should contain brief bios of the cast, and any that ever become known for something else will get split out and become a "main" article. Until then, no stubs, just redirects to the Filthy Rich article, since that's primarily what they're known for. Gimmetrow 08:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Given the addition of the rest of the cast, I'm adjusting my view to merging the content of these stubs to a cast bios section of Filthy Rich. If nobody has an objection to this, I'll merge the content in a day or two (without birthdates per Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays). The doubt for me is whether the ex-stubs should redirect to the famous parent, or to Filthy Rich. One of the cast is already redirected to an article about another reality show which dealt with her family. Gimmetrow 07:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that they should be redireted/merged to their parents for two reasons. 1 - some of them have minor valuable encyclpedic information outside of Filthy Rich, and that info can't really be merged into the Filthy Rich article. 2) in most cases, the parents' notability is greater and longer lasting then the show. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete, had a very brief fifteen minutes, then sank without a trace. NN reality TV star. Redirect to Filthy Rich: Cattle Drive if absolutely need be. Lankiveil (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Delete all. None of these people seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Forever doomed to be permastubs, I guess.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I've merged all the information I found significant from Shanna Ferrigno, Noah Blake, Alex A. Quinn, and Haley Giraldo to the article on the TV show. The only reason for keeping these pages as redirects of some form would be licensing issues. Nothing from George Foreman III, Courtenay Semel or Alexander Clifford was used; these can be deleted without a problem. Gimmetrow 03:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Already done speedily by myself. Jmlk 1 7 06:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Qst 12:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radwimps

Notability of the group is questionable; the article doesn't answer it. I cannot find satisfactory answers on the net either (in English). The article isn't even well written, and is not suitable for English Wikipedia in its current form. huji—TALK 20:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, they seem to have a rather lengthy and well-sourced article on the Japanese Wikipedia: ja:RADWIMPS. My high-school Japanese has almost rusted away, but the links seem to imply that they've released material on Virgin and EMI, which would mean they meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Weak keep per their AMG discography - if they have released two full-length albums on EMI that should be WP:MUSIC addressed.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:08, 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. Hut 8.5 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Al Hendrix

NN, other than as the father of someone famous. Ckessler (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete, notability is not transferable (and the cash-in bio doesn't really count). Not a likely search term, either. I'm shocked that we have Early life of Jimi Hendrix. --Dhartung | Talk 01:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
speedy Delete per nom, not enough context. Jelly the Supermodel (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Of course there's enough context so that anybody reading it can tell what it's about. It just isn't notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Notability is not... um... what's the reverse of inherited? Or does that apply here? >_> Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless some influence on his son's career can be established. Ummm...how about "outherited"? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:BIO despite the book that was written.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete If my anonymous opinion matters... He doesn't really deserve an article, since he didn't do anything really notable (except "My Son Jimi", but thats a stretch) 71.207.10.23 (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete just like notability can't be inherited, it can't be uh well it doesn't go the other way. Avruchtalk 03:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per everyone else. Agreement! Victuallers (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brittany O'Neil

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brittany O'Neil

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Can not find secondary sources, so it indeed fails WP:BIO. Tiptoety ^talk 04:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, wow, what horrible thing happened to that woman in the photo? Can't find any references asserting notability, only her own website and a few directories of porn videos. Lankiveil (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Comment. Here's a secondary source that mentions her along with other notable big-bust porn actresses of the '90s such as Danni Ashe and Chloe Vevrier (the latter is still really hot despite approaching 40 and doesn't have tacky fake tits unlike this actress here, and she's also more of a "glamour model" than a "porn star" in the same vein as Nadine Jansen and Milena Velba). Still not convinced about notability though.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No independent reliable source suggesting notability. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:Bio. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per notability (people) Avruchtalk 03:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete per CSD A7. Just another porn actor that fails WP:BIO TheBilly (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with the debate leaning toward keep. The chief argument of the delete proponents is that the coverage of Dorsey qualifies as a "short burst" a la WP:N#TEMP. As the keep proponents point out, however, his activity for a top-level amateur sports team makes it more of a slow trickle of minor coverage followed by a short burst of major coverage, and thus it is not actually his death alone that provides notability. BrownHairedGirl's suggestion of a merge is reasonable but has gotten no further comment; it can of course be considered through the usual editorial processes. Chick Bowen 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keeley Dorsey

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Keeley Dorsey

Articles for deletion/Keeley Dorsey (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Keeley Dorsey (3rd nomination)

Let's take a look at WP:BIO and how this article fails:

Basic criteria: Multiple reliable sources. "Technically" there are reliable sources about his death, rather than the person. I'm iffy, but willing to give this bio the benefit, so let's look at the additional criteria. "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." No. "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." No. "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." ~~No.~~ see below

Also, WP:BIO1E is technically right, he was only in the news when we was due to his death, nothing else came out of it. Also, from WP:N#TEMP, "A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." This was at best a short burst, we heard nothing before or since.

Honestly, despite it passing the basic criteria of having reliable sources, I still just can't see how this individual is notable at all, 11 months after the first AfD. Wizardman 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Surely while tragic for the family and shocking for the school, sports practice deaths are not really notable. --01:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs)
Keep Uh, he did play at "the highest level in amateur sports", not sure how you concluded he didn't. --W.marsh 04:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete mode of death is well recognised and non-notable except for inclusion in a medical/cardiological textbook. Person is non-notable. docboat (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Yes. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Paste (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I just realized that what I said above was a little messy. When we say "competed at the highest level of amateur sports" I take it to mean that in college, they were at least a starter for the team, not a backup. Also, i can't see articles being written on every single college player, which if sourced is what seems to be argued. That's an argument for another time though. Wizardman 16:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's not what the guideline says, though... there's nothing about backup/starter, just that they competed at that level. The sources are there for Dorsey... they probably aren't for a huge number of college players. WP_BIO-meeting notability plus sources... there's nothing wrong with an article here... we don't have any space constraints. --W.marsh 03:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:N, doesn't really meet WP:RS either IMHO (nor will it, obviously). Avruchtalk 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- It cites 3 different reliable sources with non-trivial coverage about the subject, and there are 82 other articles about the subject not yet cited... so your comment seems to be exactly wrong. Are you sure you looked at the references and the guidelines you're citing? --W.marsh 03:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. One link is broken, and the other two aren't necessarily trivial but they aren't comprehensive or supportive of his notability either (one says "So no, his loss won't be felt on the football field"). And yes, I've looked at the guidelines as well. Avruchtalk 04:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate even more, when people die in public it tends to be treated as a temporarily bigger deal than it would otherwise be - especially if the person is young and an athlete, for whatever reason. I don't personally believe that dying young makes someone notable, even if its covered in some newspaper articles. Stringer (whose name I can't remember) is the giant NFL player who collapsed - I think he might be considered notable, particularly because many of the articles about him placed his death in the larger context of football player health care and the dangers of heat exhaustion in the NFL. Plus, he was a pro player. This guy was a back bencher, and while his death is tragic it doesn't make his life notable. Avruchtalk 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You said this fails WP:RS and WP:N though, but there's nothing saying it has to be only online sources, and you don't seem to think any of the sources so far are unreliable. WP:BIO says that, as long as the sources exist, a player just needed to have competed at the top amateur level... you may not agree with why he got so much coverage, but he meets any guideline people can trump up. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete) which has a similar claim of importance but vastly fewer sources is being roundly kept. --W.marsh 14:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm invoking WP:IAR then. Wizardman 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Very strong delete. Someone who didn't do anything other than die at '19' is not notable...lots of people die at a young age. Extremely sexy (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge to South Florida Bulls football. Dorsey is at best marginal wrt WP:BIO, but hi death does seem to have been a significant event in the history of the team, so it deserves a brief mention there. As with the many unexpandable stub articles on very old people (where the previous voter, Bart Versieck/Extremely sexy always voted "very strong keep") there is no need to make a stark binary choice between keeping a trivial permastub or deleting the article. Merger offers a simple way of retaining the info in the context of an an article on a notable topic, and ot's pit that it isn't used more often at AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Meets bio. About the all college football players making it, nope, read the criteria. Only if they played college football and meet the general RS bit. Many college football players would not meet the general BIO requirments for substantial coverage about them in RS. This players death received national news coverage in RS, played football at the highest level, thus notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Still a Keep, as he passes all criteria and nothing has changed to make him less notable.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, I have to say. If having played at the highest level in amateur sports is notable, then this person is notable. Also easily passes WP:V, in particular due to an unfortunate death at a young age - being deceased doesn't make him less notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's the rub, though. His death seems to be the reason he's passing notability, which doesn't seem to make sense to me. Wizardman 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Doma-w (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NOTAVOTE Wizardman 01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  - I studied the discussion above for my decision. And I do not want to repeat the arguments. Doma-w (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Fair enough, just checking. Wizardman 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this qualify as the "one bad event" that was the rationale for deleting the Doran article? ^Avruchtalk 03:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- So we should delete articles on otherwise notable people just because they died? People really get confused easily on this issue... playing at the top level of amateur sports has been a qualification in WP:BIO forever. Dorseey met that, and there are plenty of sources on him. Yet we should delete the article because he died? How does that make sense? --W.marsh 04:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIO is a guideline, and he was hardly notable. Perhaps he was on the team, but did he actually play? ^Avruchtalk 04:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There still has to be a good reason for ignoring it even if it is a guideline... usually that reason would be about sources, but sourcing isn't an issue here. The main reason for ignoring it here seems to be "he died" which is pretty bizarre and no one can really elaborate on why that's a good reason to delete an article. If you read the article he did play, by the way. --W.marsh 04:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Did he actually play? Sorry Avruch, but did you actually read the article? Aboutmovies (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] The Three Bishes

The result was speedy delete - A7. --Michael Greiner 02:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet another new religion with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'd have speedied it as db-group, but Blanchardb is more forgiving than I, to his credit. But this certainly doesn't assert notability or contain any. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a non-notable club with no assertion of notability and no sources. I too would have placed a {{db-group}} on it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy A7 per nom. Positive assertion of non-notability - "now, they're completely on hold, not playing anything together, waiting for TigerGeo to return after a month of being on vacation." Tevildo (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- A7 tag added. Tevildo (talk) 02:11, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote fraud

Unsourced neologism, no assertion of notability. ~~Claim of a Wikipedia policy using that term.~~Actually, it is simply the etymology of the term according to various Wikipedia articles. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Could be construed as a definition, WP:NOT a dictionary. Find a home for it somewhere else (no experience myself), but not appropriate for WP. alex.muller (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO. 8 ghits, not all even in ballpark. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, either. --Dhartung | Talk 01:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:NEO. Tiptoety ^talk 04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not clear from the article what it is even talking about. I suspect that there's a real concept, with an accepted name, being discussed here, and Capture88 (talk · contribs) simply doesn't know the name for what xe wants to write about. But it's not clear from the article what that is. The article's description is self-contradictory, and one is thus left solely with the title, which isn't the name of anything that I can find. I can see no way, sans the creator explaining what xe was intending to write about, in which this can be made into a proper article. There are no sources cited from which one could work out what the creator was writing about, there are no sources to be found, and there's practically no context in the article that editors can use to figure out what the subject is. Uncle G (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment We cover the basic concept at fine print, actually. Not to mention false advertising and argument from authority. --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Fine print. —Encephalon 13:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete What is this even about? All i got was that the author of this article used Wikipedia as a source (how meta). This seems to be a bungled entry into WP:HUMOR Doc Strange (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. OR, essay, nonsensical.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:24, 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 speedy redirect by myself. Valid alternate version of name. Discussion superfluous. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 01:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H. M. McConnell

This appears to be a duplicate article on Harden_M._McConnell, a better written article with the subject's full name, not just initials. Rabbi Jesus Muhammed (talk) 00:55, 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 wasMerge/Redirect Redirect has been made, and content has been moved to Pittsburgh Today Live/Temp. Interested editors can carry out the merge as they see fit; there was no guidance as to what was to be merged, and the article is too long to directly put into the target without giving it undue emphasis.

[edit] Pittsburgh Today Live

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pittsburgh Today Live (2nd nomination)

Program is a non-notable, local morning program. Most other local morning shows, such as Good Day Tampa Bay, have been deleted or redirected on notability grounds. Prior deletion nom was removed by creator without reason. azumanga (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect - As the show is not notable, merge/redirect to KDKA-TV. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment You are proposing a merge and delete, which presents problems due to the GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry about that....I will switch it to "Merge and Redirect". - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to KDKA-TV. --Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as above. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:39, 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. east.718 at 15:40, January 6, 2008

[edit] Techmospheric

No references, and can't find any reliable sources. The drum and bass article references this as "arguably not a recognised sub-genre" which suggests it shouldn't really have an article. The term was coined by an apparently non-notable artist and the list of artists has only one notable enough for an article which doesn't mention "techmospheric" at all. Unless WP:RSs can be added I propose this be deleted. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Unsourced, neologism or possible promo for original research, and nobody associated with it appears particularly notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Made up term used by pretty much no one that shouldn't even be mentioned on Wikipedia. Wickethewok (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, not even worth a redirect it seems.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no, on re-reading the sentence does a dismal job of explaining techmospheric anyway, get rid of it, I'll write something better in order to Merge into Intelligent drum and bass. In terms of sources, I could find a forum or blog post from ASC referring to "Cov Ops pushing the techmospheric sound" or whatever, but I don't think if I did that changes anything, in terms of Wikipedia, it's a niche word used mainly by its inventor(s), and certainly what is there doesn't merit a separate article. IMHO, the textual content:

Techmospheric is a new form of drum and bass that evolved from the roots of intelligent drum and bass but expands upon its formula, often adding a more dancefloor oriented approach with the types of beats and bass that are used. The sound came to fruition in 2005, after ASC coined the phrase for the type of music his Covert Operations label was releasing.

~~should simply be added to the other article (with a cite added), which would also serve to~~ update that article with where the lighter / atmospheric side of d&b has gone since GLO declined as a viable force. Stevekeiretsu (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, though I have no problem with future recreation. Wizardman 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Witch House: The Legend of Petronel Haxley

Consted Prod.Non-notable movie. All references I can find through search engines seem to be self-published. Carados (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep I found one article about the film from The Northern Echo, and the it is included in the British Council's website. More sources might become available when the film is released next year. Bláthnaid 18:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete There are little sources available. I have also just tagged the article "orphaned." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmpandya (talk • contribs) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete this seems to be a very small release, perhaps it could be recreated later should we be proven wrong. Marlith 03:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] List of Spelljammer crystal spheres

[edit] Trudy (coronation street)

[edit] Thomas Tyra

[edit] Bernardo Sandals

[edit] Biography of Pope John Paul II

[edit] North Central Victoria

[edit] Sindh TV

[edit] Carlito and Santino Marella

[edit] EX600

[edit] Ram ravana war

[edit] Liu Ch'ing

[edit] Whopper Freakout

[edit] dtm (nightclub)

[edit] List of longest reigning monarchs of all time

[edit] Rocky Costanzo

[edit] Chi-Chi (Scarface)

[edit] Czechs in Omaha, Nebraska

[edit] Oonkie

[edit] Dordle

[edit] Popkin

[edit] Theodore Chester

[edit] Dixons City Academy

[edit] Black Lantern Corps

[edit] Caregiver (comics)

[edit] Jupiter Station

[edit] The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon

[edit] Trailer Trash (movie)

[edit] Porkchop plot

[edit] Armless

[edit] The White Van

[edit] Hannah Montana Doll

[edit] Field Precision

[edit] Uka Uka

[edit] Michael LaLena

[edit] Gia Farrell (album)

[edit] List of EU countries by natural gas production

[edit] Bluematter.

[edit] Mive

[edit] Picasion

[edit] Dibble Dabble

[edit] Courier (comics)

[edit] Lucio Levi

[edit] Indophobia

[edit] Not Yet New York

[edit] Obi Sium

[edit] Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms

[edit] Lexx planets

[edit] Ground provisions

[edit] Ann Sanderson

[edit] List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 197

[edit] List of major slaughterhouses

[edit] Kenkojuku

[edit] Planet Petite

[edit] Sugar & Spice (album)

[edit] Nine Hundred Nights (film)

[edit] Domaine du Castel

[edit] Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time

[edit] Determination puzzle

[edit] Maurizio Giuliano

[edit] Dieter stanzeleit

[edit] The Lucifer Principle

[edit] Thomas Wellock

[edit] Pakistan Student Satellite Program

[edit] Bill Majors

[edit] Indian general elections 1977-1999

[edit] Those Dancing Days

[edit] EBabe

[edit] Sen no Shōan

[edit] Battle Cry (2008 film)

[edit] Crossvision

[edit] Age of Chivalry (Mod)

[edit] Milan Dobrojevic

[edit] Conversations (From A Second Story Window Album)

[edit] Horrible

[edit] Rubidoux high school

[edit] Albums released in 2007

[edit] Andorian Empire