Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was keep; nomination withdrawn; non-admin closure. John Vandenberg 11:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Akop Sanasaryan

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

Non-notable Alan Liefting 23:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The page has had a significant update and a name change to the correct spelling after I had placed the AfD. I would now like to withdraw my nomination. Alan Liefting 10:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - he seems borderline non-notable; there are some mentions in reliable sources, like this, but none are personal. On a related note, could you expand your rationales for deletion - they're a little terse? --Haemo 23:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The article has been a stub for almost a year, google gives 87 hits, google scholar gives no hits and one quotation in a magazine surely does not establish notability. Alan Liefting 02:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep that article is from New Scientist, so i would assume that if they noticed his campaign, that others have also.DGG (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, he is notable. Callelinea 03:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I think. An environmental campaigner from Armenia who I suspect from a quick perusal of the google hits is reasonably well known in that field. Note that his name is also spelt 'Hakob Sanasaryan' (probably something to do with the transliteration) and that this returns a further 200 hits on google. There's even a press picture of him here[1] --Malcolmxl5 04:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Stands borderline in notability. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I stubbed this a while back and had forgotten about it. Akop Sanasaryan is a major environmentalist and chemist in Armenia who has been an active player in nuclear politics in the country. One thing I dislkie about wikipedia is uneven coverage -that some small time university professor or blog operator in America is considered "notable" yet an Armenian chemist isn't because the article was a stub?? I'd have appreciated the nominator personally asking me to expand it before going through this process - as always what is "notable" is often POV. Sanasaryan is also chairman of the Green Union of Armenia which I believe is a noted Armenian environmental group. Secondly I don't create articles if I don't believe they have an element of benefit for the encyclopedia and could quite reasonably be developed into articles. PLease don't give me a what wikipedia is and WP:Not and all that -I'm far from a beginner!!. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 09:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If New Scientist says he's notable, other sources do as well -- even if we haven't found them yet. More sourcing is in order, not deletion. Spazure 09:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Ponce Silén

Carlos Ponce Silén (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Alan Liefting 23:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - he seems borderline non-notable. He's mentioned in a few reliable sources, like this, but not in a personal context. Maybe merge to his NGO articles? --Haemo 23:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, seams notable enough.Callelinea 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I agree with Haemo that this is borderline but I think a short separate article is better than a merge in this case since the article could be relevant to several articles and it is better to keep the information on the individual in one single place. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Little presence on the internet. No Spanish Wikipedia article FWIW. On the other hand, seems to have collaborated with Amnesty, the UN, etc. From what info is available, Mr Ponce Silén has credentials comparable to scores of people I know personally - and I wouldn't put any of those people on Wikipedia. A very borderline case...--Targeman 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - seems this is on the borderline since other than the nominator, we're all a little on the fence here. :-) So why I land weakly on this side: there's no indication that any of his NGOs are notable, what they've done etc. If more of that information were available this could be a keeper, if it just doesn't exist because the NGOs are really not notable, then delete is the right way to go. Carlossuarez46 01:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Subject does not really pass the notability standard. As an aside, who sets up 27 NGOs ? That seems a suspiciously high number. Eusebeus 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources. A UN press release isn't sufficient -- Whpq 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Here is the best luck I had searching for him in Google news. A cluster of major U.S. newspaper articles in June 2004 mentioning him by name, one from June 2006 quoting him (the hit on the first search page is just some press release, I think, but it's also on page 7 from the Miami Herald and on page 9 from Agence France Presse), and some false positives for entertainers and sports figures with similar names. That doesn't seem like quite enough press for someone truly notable for this sort of activity. —David Eppstein 21:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Whpq and David Eppstein. These sources are not "reliable" sources to establish his notability, and he would have more credible sources with information about him were he more notable. bwowen ^{talk•contribs} 22:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coin ring

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

Uncited original research with no assertion of notability. --EEMeltonIV 23:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - it's a ring, made out of a coin. You can make a ring out of pretty much any reasonably thick, circular piece of metal. Why is a coin version of this notable? Who knows! Why is this an encyclopedia article? Also, who knows! --Haemo 03:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep A Google search for "coin ring" brought up about 35,900 hits, and although at least some of the hits seem to be about rings that aren't made from actual coins, it may deserve looking into and improving. --Maltrich 03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for now, per WP:NOT#DICT - Nothing but a definition now which can easily be re-added when/if recreated again Corpx 04:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ring (finger). --Malcolmxl5 04:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - one of several novel or unique way to make a ring, though it definately needs improvingStatisticalregression 01:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, Haemo, and Corpx. Bearian 19:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Interesting but not notable ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CIreland and Zagalejo's points prove its notability. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 14:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kesey's Garage Sale

Kesey's Garage Sale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a novel which does not assert notability, and only briefly rehashes the plot. Gilliam 23:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I think the consensus has been that books by notable authors aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't see any specific notability for this book. --Haemo 23:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm going to say Keep. Google Books and Google Scholar suggest that the work has received a fair amount of attention by literary critics and pop culture scholars. I've also found a substantial (six column) review from the New York Times (Mordecai Richler, "A catch-all collection largely of detritus." 7 October 1973) and a two page review from The Nation (Jerry Griswold, "Plain-Speaking Allegory" 23 February 1974). Now, I don't have complete access to all of those sources, so I'm not going to be able to expand the article by myself, but I'd be damned if this doesn't pass WP:BK. Zagalejo 02:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Addendum: Note that Kesey was not the sole author of this work (which, BTW, is not a novel, as the nominator asserts). It also contains contributions by Arthur Miller, Allen Ginsberg, and Hugh Romney. [2]. Zagalejo 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While true, that fact in my opinion only adds to its notability, rather than detracts from it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my point, basically. I want to keep the article, too. Zagalejo 18:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The contributors to this book establish its notability per criterion 5 of WP:BK and probably criterion 1 could be easily satisfied through print (rather than online) sources. CIreland. 09:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Zagalejo and CIreland.--JayJasper 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We're nominating Ken Kesey books now? Madness. Notable book by an extremely notable author, easily passes any remotely reasonable notability criteria (e.g. WP:BK). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anne-Marie Horne

Anne-Marie Horne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Alan Liefting 23:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely minimal context in here, and the incident described doesn't seem to have made it in the Greenpeace article. A Google doesn't turn up anything of substance with regards to this person. The article is unreferenced entirely, and thus unverifiable. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with David McTaggart. She herself appears not to be notable but the event appears to be notable in the context of McTaggart's career in Greenpeace. --Malcolmxl5 05:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not individually notable. Incident has not been covered by reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. One famous incident does not make one notable, as per WP:BIO#Criteria_for_notability_of_people. Bearian 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 04:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Durant

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

Not even close to meeting notability standards; ran as a candidate for a political party, lost, not a notable actvist. Stump 22:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unless some reliable sources can be found to establish this subject's notability, it fails. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability Corpx 04:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 05:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. No cites at all?! Bearian 19:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an article on the whole series could be created though. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost on the Darkside

Lost on the Darkside (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about an anthology that reads only like a list. Not an article: does not cite sources or assert notability. Gilliam 22:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Does not assert notability in any way, no sources, and looks like a list. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 23:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Even if the stories are notable, and that's not clear to me, the anthology as such is probably not notable. Shalom ^Hello 03:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per vishwin60. --Malcolmxl5 05:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I added more information to the page. The author is notable, the anthology authors are largely notable, and Roc Press is a major publisher. Since the volume is one of an anthology series, perhaps it would be more appropriate to create a page for the whole series? Eliz81 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 04:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thinstuff

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

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place for people to come and advertise their companies and their products. See WP:NOT#ADVOCATE AlistairMcMillan 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. Furthermore, it's also not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a directory. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - yeah, looks like advertising at this point. If it becomes sourced and properly written I'd reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• week keep - there are other articles about virtualiztion software, maybe it should be merged?Statisticalregression 01:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, and because the external sources are not referenced; possibly WP:OR. Bearian 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite Has been mentioned in Linux Journal, an authoraitative publication about Linux, so it does satisfy WP:CORP that it's mentioned by independent reliable sources. The ad like tone can always be rewritten.--Kylohk 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The link above is just a brief paragraph saying "X have released Y which is a Z". Basically the magazine is just reporting on a press release they have received. I don't think that is what we are looking for when we ask for "reliable sources". AlistairMcMillan 23:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relevant details are already in parent article. If there is well-sourced material in this article that needs to be merged into the parent article, let me know and I can provide a copy of the deleted article to harvest the material. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy (UK)

Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy (UK) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page is currently a fork of Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) with a few minor formatting changes and some content removed. Under the guideline at Wikipedia:Content forking, this should be be deleted. Another option that was considered for this page is to use it to contain details about the racism controversy associated with the series by splitting off the relevant sections from the main article. However, by looking at the methods at WP:SIZE, the size of the article alone does not justify this, so I recommend that this page is deleted. Tra (Talk) 21:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Delete I think "Fork" is misleading here. The vast majority of information in this article is a straight up cut-and-paste from Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) that have nothing to do with the specific subject of the racism controversy (e.g. most of the introduction, a paragraph on each contestant, charts of evictions, etc). In fact the source article already has an extremely large section on Accusations of racism and bullying. What exactly is new in this separate article? I suspect one or two editors who had a paragraph stripped from the main article who decided they want their own competing article, a suspicion I think is backed up since there isn't a link to the original article anywhere in the introduction of the racism one. Who would write an article on a sub-subject and not link the broader context? -Markeer 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and delete per Markeer — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Merge and delete isn't possible, per the GFDL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So merge and redirect instead. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if the GFDL section on Secondary sections applies here as the author of this offshoot is anonymous (see article history, all major contributions were by IP addresses). However, I'm not a lawyer. If secondary sections applies, delete in toto and redirect, but userfy the article to the article creator's sandbox (in this case an IP address sandbox). Theoretically that author could incorporate what he or she believes important back into the original article. Either way, this article shouldn't exist separately from the original. -Markeer 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) because the article being nominated is currently a fork. Wikipedia does not need duplicate (or even near-duplicate) articles. Yes, the SIZE of the original article doesn't justify splitting this content to a whole separate article. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Content forks should be merged, not deleted. --SmokeyJoe 00:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Content forking suggests that they should be nominated for deletion. Should that guideline be changed or is this a special case? Tra (Talk) 01:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The guideline says that they may be nominated for deletion. Elsewhere it says that accidental forks should be merged. I think the guideline should be rewritten to clarify that by default all forks should be merged, and that deletions should be special cases. Cases like this shouldn’t be wasting time at AfD, they should be subject a straightforward editorial decisions to merge the forked articles. Whether this one should be merged depends on the quality of the stand alone article, and its sources (see WP:N), but regardless of that decision I don’t think deletion should be used here. --SmokeyJoe 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, that sounds better. I've changed the guideline to that effect. Tra (Talk) 01:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        • ...And was reverted. Perhaps more discussion over this issue is needed? Tra (Talk) 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete The problem with big brother articles is they are visited a huge amount through the programs duration and shortly after, but hardly ever when its over. We're then left with hundreds of small, effectively stub sized articles which are really quite redundant. Keeping Big Brother (and similar TV show) pages to a minimum number of larger than normally accepted sized articles is preferable to keeping many small articles. This reduces AfD's 2 years down the road when no one remembers (or wants to know on wikipedia) who Emily Parr is. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 16:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per WikipedianProlific. I think merge and delete violates the GFDL. One page per Big Brother series is quite enough, thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep- I'll try to remove the POVish Jade bashing and pith.--86.29.254.249 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC) P.S.- tagging- how come it's condemed for having both slang/buzwords and erudite/technical words by the same tagger.

Comment- Cutting and merging out some of the bezaar and unsourced entries. --86.25.49.3 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of pairs of colleagues

List of pairs of colleagues (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This list is an indiscriminate collection of information. It would also be unmaintainable, and the topic itself isn't clearly defined. Potentally original research as well. Sr13 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - It certainly is a indiscriminate collection of information. I also believe that it has to wide a base and many important "pairs of colleagues" might get left out. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, no criteria for inclusion. Indiscriminate list. Woefully incomplete. Original research. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Break it up Will never be complete, and would even crash a Vista PC. Blueboy96 23:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clearly original research, an indiscriminate collection of information, and a directory. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - list of any two people who worked together for any reason at any time. But not three people. Three is bad, for some reason. --Haemo 03:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete PURE trivia - disallowed by WP:FIVE Corpx 04:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 05:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this is better covered in the more specific subgroups of Lists of pairs. You see? I don't always say "keep", but my agreement is not based on the wording of the nom with which I disagree. Also -if this is deleted, who will make sure that all of the information contained in this article has been re-assigned to the others I mentioned? Surely you don't want the work of other editors to have been wasted. I volunteer to assist in this. Tvoz |talk 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with a category. Bearian 20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That idea works for me. Tvoz |talk 20:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per indiscriminate collection of information and original research. Carlosguitar 08:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Fabrictramp 14:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete both. Sr13 07:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myachi

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

List of All Myachis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Also nominated. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Originally prodded; admin suggested I afd which I have done. Mainly I'm concerned with the notability of this. This also concerns List of All Myachis. Both articles seem to have no reliable sources. -WarthogDemon 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No independtely reliable sources. I also did a google search to attempt to find some sources and pulled up nothing. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While it appeared on a segment on ABC, the main article fails to assess more reliable sources than that one. Maybe it will get notable in a near future, but for now it isn't. The second article has no encyclopedic content. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, especially the second article. The second article (list) has only one real source, which is a primary source. Given that there is a secondary source on the first article, it was greatly outnumbered by the sole primary source. It might gain notability in the future, but right now, no. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 00:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Don't freaking delete, Myachi is new; you can't expect there to be a lot of reliable sources -- BrownsFanForLife 01:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) — BrownsFanForLife (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I actually have 24 Google News Archives hit, unfortunately most of them subscription, stretching back to 2001, but several seem to be repeats. The only actual free link that looks to be a reliable source is this one in the Tennessean from 2004. I think this is kind of on the edge at this point - but the article is terrible, and if it sticks around should be hacked way down, much like Hacky Sack. Weak delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hack it way down? If you do that, you might as well delete it. The article is that big because there's a lot of information about Myachi. You can't just say "It's a small sack filled with sand that is tossed around on the back of the hand" because that says NOTHING about what Myachi really is or how you play the game. If anyone starts to delete info, please at least talk to me about what's going on... I'm sorry there aren't many sources available, but I want the article to at least explain the basic points of the game. -- BrownsFanForLife 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - right now it reads very much like advert/marketing information - and can't imagine a reason to have a list of all the color variations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Statisticalregression (talk • contribs).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 01:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Kerouac in popular culture

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

Unlike other "in popular culture" articles, this one is basically List of mentions of Jack Kerouac, making it essentially a WP:NOT vio. Bulldog123 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree definitely a indiscriminate collection of information. It includes every possible reference of Jack Kerouac. It might as well include an incindent when a school newspaper metioned him. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Has Jack Kerouac ever existed outside of popular culture? ~ Infrangible 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Another trivia collection without the sources. Maybe some info can be transferred into the main article in a sub-section, but little may be salvageable. --JForget 22:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the first line says it all: "This is a list of popular culture references made to American Beat author Jack Kerouac." If only more "in pop culture" articles were so honest. --Haemo 23:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources; clearly some indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is not. (→vishwin60 - is User:O in 3 days (possibly)) 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, hopelessly unmanageable listcruft. Just a list of mentions, nothing more. Kill it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FIVE - Not a trivia collection Corpx 04:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO. Complete and utter unencyclopedic content. María (críticame) 18:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:LC (points 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) Stifle (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is doubtlessly an interesting source of Kerouac trivia for a fan, but does definitely not belong in an encyclopedia. --Targeman 00:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom., and all of the above.--JayJasper 14:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Oswald

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

Subject of article fails WP:ATT and WP:BIO. Cannot find any independent significant sources and cannot find his books at the major outlets Nv8200p talk 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. An arcane subject (runes?) if ever there was one, and there are no independent sources - indeed, one of the external links was added by Runemaker (talk · contribs), who may have a COI. Shalom ^Hello 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Borderline noteability. Author of the article hasn't been online since the 30th April, a shame as it would be nice to hear her opinion. Inclusion of a fairly good quality informal picture seems odd on an article of such small size. We must remember to put that forward for deletion to if this is indeed deleted. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 16:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, can't see how he meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I tired looking for sources and his books, couldn't find any. Nothing wrong with an arcane subject, but at this point subject doesn't seem Notable enoughStatisticalregression 02:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Bearian 19:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Studios of Self Defense

United Studios of Self Defense (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This McDojo article patently fails WP:Notability with zero reliable, independent sources and none to be found in a Google News search. Without sources, this is very clearly spam. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the other editors here. This article is being abused and shaped for advertisement purposes, with little fact and large helpings of bias. I propose that it be deleted. NJM

• Comment There seem to be an awful lot of these around, though - at least in my neck of the woods (Southern California). Need to look into the company more closely. If they're commercially successful they may be notable for that, even if the quality of their instruction is equivalent to McDonalds' in the food business. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Honestly, from the simple anecdotal accounts I've read and heard, they're not too bad. The McDojo thing is mostly referencing the vast amount of schools. But simple size of the organization isn't notability, and when so vast a school-system as this doesn't have equally significant coverage...that says to me that they aren't notable enough for encyclopedic treatment. For an organization encompassing 170 separate facilities nation-wide, shouldn't they be getting more coverage if they are notable? VanTucky ^(talk) 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable sources are cited to provide verifiability and establish notability. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment if deleted a less neutral version is libable to be created, making the best of whats there might be a better option. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What might happen in the future on this subject is not an excuse for letting an unsourced, non-notable article stand. If the situation arises, we will deal with it. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • My point was it would be better to have a cleaned version of this then nothing p.s. started to clean--Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      • But it doesn't fundamentally matter whether it is neutral and clean or not, it patently fails WP:Notability and WP:V. I might have a really great article on myself, but it would still fail WP:BIO. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Blunden Harbour

The result was Speedy delete. CSD G12: copyvio. Mike Peel 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This subject does not meet WP:ATT. No significant third party coverage. Article looks like a promo by the distributor. Nv8200p talk 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G12 as a copyvio of [3]. Leaving that aside, there are only 70 Ghits for the film name plus "Robert Gardner" - theser are commercial sites, not critical reviews, so it's not a notable film. Shalom ^Hello 03:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Shalom, tagged article as such. DMacks 16:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Helicopter

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

The subject does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. I can only find one album and it is not even listed in the article. No significant media coverage. Nv8200p talk 19:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No multiple non-trivial sources asserted. I could only find a MySpace link to this band. Spellcast 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  After Chubbles added all those sources with non-trivial mentions, I changed my decision to keep. Spellcast 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. - Philippe | Talk 19:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not sure where you're looking, but a couple search engines brought up a bunch of results. They're getting a fair bit of media coverage (no surprise, when you're on Thurston Moore's label...). Added five nontrivial media sources. Chubbles 22:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as revised. No evidence of a national tour? --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, it seems they did in March of this year. Added another source (requires a subscription, but the key sentence showed up in a Yahoo cache). Chubbles 23:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per the work done by Chubbles - nice work. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If you look at the diff between the original AFD notice and now, there's no comparison. Good work, Chubbles, and the notability and refs are there. Shalom ^Hello 03:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly meets WP:BAND. Closenplay 14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are now plenty of 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability per WP:Music. Cricket02 05:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russophobia

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

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

Original essay, a collection of arbitrary facts from newspapers, internet sites and similar sources to prove the existence of a particular prejudice. We have already had Anti-Hellenism (deleted), Anti-Bosniak sentiment(deleted), recreated Bosniakophobia (and deleted again), Anti-Hungarian sentiment(deleted), etc. compiled in exact same way.--Mbuk 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep and clean up - per this search --Addhoc 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There is also [4] and [5] search. Just as convincing. That is not an argument. --Hillock65 23:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't operate on a principle of precedent, so your searches aren't relevant. The link I've provided demonstrates that multiple authors have devoted chapters to this subject and therefore a reasonable article could be written. Addhoc 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the same arguments stated at AfD for Estophobia. --Novelbank 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per AfD arguments for Estophobia et al. Bigdaddy1981 01:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Hesitant delete When being informed about this AfD, I noticed that we we have a lot of articles along the same lines; anglophobia, francophobia, lusophobia, serbophobia, etc. A lot of these are obviously nothing but neologisms or merely contrived terms for "hatred of" or, as many similar articles are named, "anti-XXX sentiment". Changing the article titles would actually give the articles more merit. However, it should be noted that there's a huge difference difference between, for example, racism against Chinese, which sports a long and rich tradition of Western chauvinist nastiness, and borderline cases, like lusophobia, which smacks of almost as much pouty nationalism as estophobia. Peter ^Isotalo 07:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This topic is not backed by verification in reliable sources, and most of its contents seem to be original research. And while this may be more a cleanup rather than a deletion issue, it also is extremely POV. VanTucky ^(talk) 07:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: That doesn't make sense. You admit that it's not even a deletion issue, yet you vote delete? -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As pointed out by Novelbank and Bigdaddy1981, the same principles apply as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia, which also should be kept. I would support renaming this article here to Anti-Russian sentiment. Digwuren 13:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I tried to make this move several times, but it was usally quickly reverted by lovers of stingy terminology. `'Míkka 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per VanTucky. Oysterguitarist 14:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename as "anti-Russian sentiment" or something like that. Russophobia is too much of a neologism. The article is well cited and should be kepted. The nominator is misleading since he only mentioned a number of deleted articles of barely similar nature but not the many more similar articles that have been kept. Just look at the entries on Template:Discrimination2. --CGM1980 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete and merge w/ Russo-X articles. I can't accept voting "keep" an article which has around 20 {fact} tags. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Someone went nuts with the fact tag, but there are 40 references in the article. --CGM1980 19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but there are masses of unsourced claims and arguments in there also. Bigdaddy1981 23:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP - Though, I believe the article needs some serious improvement, and should possibly be renamed "anti-Russian sentiment", with a redirect from "Russophobia. Padishah5000 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect - Perhaps the best idea would be to create a general list on the subject. List of Anti-national sentiments would be the name of the new article. It would have a section for each of the many different national sentiment articles that have been created. The more well known sentiments sections could have a link to there main article, and the lesss know sentiments just the section. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a really good idea. The template solution, i.e. Template:Discrimination2, doesn't work very well. I personally hate that template as it contains everything and the kitchen sink. But pulling out an article List of anti-national sentiments would probably be a much better solution. There is a need to pull these topics together more than they are right now. --CGM1980 21:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You know what creeps me out? Those little russian dolls that fit inside one another (shiver) ~ Infrangible 21:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The article certainly needs some work, but historically the subject of Russophobia is a valid one. If it can be refocused on historical instances, like Britain in the Great Game and such, then it should stay. matt91486 22:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - another case of radical deletionism. This term has been used and referenced by:
  • Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
  • The west's new Russophobia is hypocritical - and wrong The Guardian (UK)
  • a book title "Bram Stoker and Russophobia: Evidence of the British Fear of Russia in Dracula and The Lady of the Shroud"

Anything with those many prominent references is a strong keep.

-- Fuzheado | Talk 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be very well written or notable. Article lacks scholarly opinions and violates WP:NEO. I don't even know if Russophobia is even the proper term for the idea.--Sefringle^Talk 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  If you don't trust the 1911 Britannica, I suggest you consult "The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain" (Harvard University Press, 1950).[6] --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 05:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. AfD is not cleanup. Clearly a notable topic in its own right. —Xezbeth 09:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep unlike the WP:POINT-violating Estophobia, this article goes well beyond the 1990s and looks at hundreds of historical cases. Likewise Russophobia is actually a genuine modern issue [7]. --Kuban Cossack 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Why don't you attempt to delete Anti-Polish sentiment to test the reaction? Russophobia is a valid, well-established concept with 663 Google Books hits and 60,000 Google hits, including encyclopaedias ("combat a wild outbreak of Russophobia" in the 1911 Britannica[8]), monographs ("The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain", Harvard University Press, 1950), articles in major media outlets ("The West's New Russophobia Is Hypocritical" from The Guardian), and academic discussions (search for "Europe's periodic bouts of Russophobia" in The New York Times). --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  Well, if the article would based on academic sources like Britannica, monographs or publication in peer-reviewed journals, I would never nominate it for delition. But it is now a collection of tendentiously interpreted fact, exactly like Estophobia article whose deletion you supported. Double standards?--Mbuk 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing two rather different things here: the notability of the subject itself and the current contents of the article. If what you're claiming is true, then the contents of the article needs to be reworked, perhaps reworked extensively, to remove the "tendentious interpretations" and keep it NPOV and verifiable. But the current contents of this article being improper (not that I'm making the claim either way) doesn't change the notability of the subject itself. In my view at least, the AfD debates should be decided on that latter concept, whereas the contents of the article should determine how it gets edited, not whether it gets deleted or kept. IgorSF 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It exists and is not a neologism.--Urthogie 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Topic is noteworthy, but the article should be rewritten from scratch. Most of the article is unsourced and seems to be opinions, not facts. All of it is badly fractured into pieces, structure should be re-thought as well. Maybe move it into userspace until the article is ready for mainspace? Sander Säde 14:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  I wonder if you care to extend the same curtousy to Estophobia, and put that into namespace (and keep there for good if possible ;). Although I must say, some of stuff in that article that is used as genuine refrences, will only help to expand Russophobia to newer levels, like this nationalist garbage. Lovely text, Lukashenko is nothing but a Russian puppet, Communism was also a Russian plague (although neither Lenin, Trotsky, Marx or Stalin were technically Russian) for which we Belarusans (not Belarusians btw) suffered. Forgetting to mention that Belarus was a founding republic of the USSR, and the first congress of the RSDRP took place in Minsk... extravagant :D --Kuban Cossack 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why you don't read the AfD about Estophobia? I supported putting article into userspace for now there as well... Sander Säde 18:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject is valid. A clean up might be needed but one does not delete an article to clean it up... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep clearly notable topic with existent sources. Needs a rewrite not a delete.--Konstable 19:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, trimming off items that are unreferenced. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Anti-Russian sentiment is a very real political phenomenon, especially in the ex-Communist bloc. The political discourse of many countries (Poland nowadays, China under Mao) revolves around the issue of hatred/mistrust toward Russia. I vote for Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor's proposal to create a list on the subject. --Targeman 00:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The word exists and is not a neologism, as per a Google search, for instance. Any unreferenced material should be deleted, and any POV content NPOV'ed, but the subject itself (as well as this particular word) exists. For those wishing to compare to the Estophobia AfD debate, I applied essentially the same criteria in both cases, and the results are different. IgorSF 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Addhoc and the mass canvassing by the nominator. I still believe it should be renamed to Anti-Russian sentiment, however. --Pan Gerwazy 01:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the topic is valid even if the article is less that it should be (and also more than it should be; trim, trim, trim). Carlossuarez46 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I remember a serious scientific discussion in Finland some years ago on whether Ryssäviha (hatred of Russians) existed in Finland in the 19th century and earlier, or whether it only emerged after the Finnish Civil War. (In fact, the Finnish article discusses this at length.) -- Petri Krohn 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - of course. At to everyone making a connection between this article and Estophobia, I suggest a careful re-read of WP:Point. Balcer 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep should be kept, just like we ought to have the article Anti-Estonian sentiment. These phenomena are existent. E.J. 08:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. All these Anti-national sentiment articles should be somehow dealt with, probably tightly watched over, particularly for the adherence of their content to their scope. Currently many of these articles provide arena for the nationalists of all sorts for their POV-pushing campaigns. Russophobia is not an exception here, as it currently discusses not only its topic but also all the grievances of individual editors, including past military conflicts, modern international politics and many others. --Lysy^talk 10:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Russophobia is a very popular phenomen in Germany and other european country(GB, Finland) in wikipedia is two german Anti-German sentiment and Organised persecution of ethnic Germans--Jaro.p 10:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and also second Lysy's comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Russophobia is probably second only to Antisemitism (and I'd even say those fobias are struggling for supremacy with swings of political currents) in the list of Western fobias. Article is bad though, should be worked on. RJ CG 14:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable but needs cleanup Taprobanus 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Just needs cleanup. To admit that this article is merely POV and need souces the not to delete is idiotic in my books. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. AFDs on discrimination topics need keen attention and a higher bar than just mobs of people with poor arguments for their vote (which *FD are not supposedly based merely upon). Clearly anti-Russian sentiment does and has existed, and the article presents evidence of it. I find it very troubling that some of the people that voted to delete Estophobia are voting to keep Russophobia or likewise among other ethnic discrimination articles. BTW, bad title e.g. "it's a neologism, nuke!" is not an argument for deletion, but for the simple act of renaming. And PS: Does anyone ever actually check to see if accusations of WP:SYNTH or WP:POINT are real, or just made as the result of POV? Pointing out acts of discrimination or prejudice are just that. And prejudice -- much prejudice -- really does exist in the world, believe it or not, and as such has encyclopedic merit. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I am surprized that an experienced editor does not see the difference between encyclopedic and nonencyclopedic topic. Yes discrimination exists, but I seriously doubt that anyone will write Madagascarophobia in the near future. Anti-Estonian sentiment is a current political development spurred by not very smart actions of Estonian government, i.e., the political (over)reaction to political developments, rather than blind prejudice. The authors failed to find any more older examples despite their panic efforts to dig some more anti-Estonian dirt. In the Soviet times, Estonians, along with the other two Baltic states were very respected in Soviet Union for their laborousness, higher general culture, and higher living standard. Of course, like everywhere, there were bigots, there were political repressions, but there was never "Estophobia" (nor lithuanophobia or smth), and this attempt to present the current political mishap as an ethnic hatred is sickening. `'Míkka 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You obviously never visited Soviet Union, when they were part of it. You would know more. While they were respected for laborousness, higher general culture, and higher living standard, there had always been a suspicion of them being "foreigners" and not truly Soviet. It went to commical - I remember when Latvian actors were complaining that the only roles they were most often asked to play was Nazis in the WWII movies. There has always been a lot of prejudice and the frequent use of racial slurs in reference to Balts is one more proof of it. Even though Estophobia was deleted, I believe, latent hatred and intolerance towards all three Baltic people is a noteworthy subject. It hasn't gone anywhere. --Hillock65 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Neither have you. If you are going to shoot a film about the Zulu Uprising in the United States who are you going to ask to play the Zulus? Any generic black person or specific Zulu-looking black people? And from a POV of black person, I get payed to dress up and run on set for three days, what have I got to loose? Same thing with any Latvian in 1970s offered to make a bit of cash for a few days work in German uniform. That is Latviaphobia??? You make me laugh. --Kuban Cossack 22:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh yeah, a Russian in German uniform will never look authentic, only Latvian will. Your racist theories finally persuaded me, I give up. --Hillock65 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
          • ??? So you are saying that the unrefrenced OR statement that no Russians ever played Germans in Soviet time films is based on looks alone is an example of Latviaphobia towards Latvians because a Latvian may have been chosen to act as a stuntmen. What are you on about ??? --Kuban Cossack 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
            • You are obviously struggling with English, I didn't write that. Read the above section again carefully. I don't have anything new to add. --Hillock65 23:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't necessarily believe that any anti-X topic is encyclopedic, but I do believe that if it can be cataloged and identified, then it probably is, as long as the X of the topic is itself encyclopedic, and the instances of anti-X were notable enough to have press or academic attention. If there is, in fact, a trend or pattern of prejudice against Madagascarians, which has multiple and distinct covered incidents etc., then Anti-Madagascarian sentiment is IMO valid -- as valid as, say, Westboro Baptist Church. In Estophobia's case, there certainly seems to be anti-Estonian sentiment; not knowing anything about it personally, a cursory search turns up [9] [10] [11]. So it arguably exists. What I find upsetting is the increasing number of people who stamp any anti-X topic AFD with "All Anti-X topics should go". So despite whether a form of prejudice exists, it may not be covered, because coverage of ethnic prejudice topics is apparently inherently unencyclopedic. I don't agree. My main argument is that a real firm bar needs to be used in AFDs on ethnic discrimination topics, particularly recent forms, because of the potential for denial and bias. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up Wow if this much energy was put into improving the article it would jump-class. Benjiboi 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Demonstrates notability and is pretty well cited. Can certainly use some tightening, though. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep although rename is in order as mentioned before. Also, the article requires large cleanup. Suva 14:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Yet another "anti-X" or "X-phobia" article that posits an original narrative. Wikipedians should not be the ones dictating what comprises the phenomenon of "Russophobia" but unfortunately that is the case here. I'm not convinced that there exists a substantial amount of RS discussing this as a phenomenon such that we can narrate this phenomenon without original synthesis. The Behnam 16:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• RS? Any history textbook on Central Europe. I agree the article sucks at times (the religious argument seems especially dubious) but I've lived in Central/Eastern Europe and believe me, many, many people there hate Russia's guts with a passion. And the hatred is much older than the latest 40-year military occupation. Anti-Russian sentiment in Poland, for instance, plays the same role that security paranoia plays in US elections. If you have any Russian connection or sympathies, you don't get elected. Sad but true. --Targeman 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Doesn't take a lot of looking: [12]. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• It isn't that I contest the existence of people who dislike Russians, but I don't see the grounds for Wikipedia narrating a phenomenon "Russophobia" as we do by tying together what could be disparate cases of 'anti-Russian sentiment' and presenting them as unified (part of the same story about "Russophobia"). Generally the narration of a phenomenon such as this should be done by non-fringe academics (as is the case for antisemitism) who decide what events comprise the phenomenon of Russophobia. Also this kind of academic coverage would have to be fairly mainstream or else we will have big case of placing undue weight on fringe views. Right now I'm simply not seeing any narration here that isn't original research and I'm not convinced that substantial RS scholarly narrations exist to work from. If you think that you can address this matter, please do and I will consider changing my position in this debate. The Behnam 20:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and second Lysy's comment. If we have articles about xxx-phobia, why Russians should be special? ellol 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 15:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebi Sub-Quest

Celebi Sub-Quest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has, as the template indicates, a context problem, but more importantly, a notability problem. If we had an article for every sub-quest or objective in the Pokémon games, we would have dozens of little stubs all around the place. Over that there is a lack of sources, and it sounds to me like the article would be more appropriate in a video game website than on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a video game guide. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - it's a side quest in Pokemon crystal. It's, maybe, worth one line in the main article. --Haemo 03:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as game-guide material. I'm not familiar with things Pokemon, but even a mention in the main article is probably borderline cruft. CIreland 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not Bulbapedia. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks, I had never heard about this site. ^^ ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bearian 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-Wanted

B-Wanted (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated, closed as a no-consensus. This is a "stub" article about a manga series that was never translated and released in the English speaking world. There is no information on the series other than a list of characters, and ISBN numbers of the Japanese publications. A Google search turns up nothing on this series except what is already found in this article, ISBN numbers. In short, no content, no assertion of notability, very little chance that this article could be improved or expanded unless someone has translated the series into English. Not to mention that there is nothing about this series on the Japanese Wikipedia, making me question notability in general. No author's article to merge the little that is in this article with, either. Rackabello 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: There simply aren't enough reliable/verifiable sources for an article on this subject. --Hetar 20:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It simply is not notable by WP:BK or WP:FICTION. --21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources back up notability. --Haemo 23:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There were six volumes published by a major publisher, and it was serialized in a major manga publication. So far as I'm concerned that's enough to make it noteable. Being a stub is not a crime, and the fact that none of us voting here have not read this doesn't mean that NOBODY has and cannot further expand at a later date. There are English-language fan pages, but I guess maybe none of those folks have made it here... YET. Snarfies 14:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue here is a complete lack of informative content, almost nothing on the web (without an understanding of Japanese) to go by, and no assertion of notability. If this is truly notable, and it can be expanded to show that, then I will withdraw the AfD. However, as it stands, this page is not even a stub; its a rephrasing of the title, a list of characters, and a list of the publication's ISBN numbers. In order for this to become a stub, some basic verifiable information above what is already there needs to be added. As far as I can tell, that doesn't exist in English at this time. Besides, this manga has never been released in English, is it so noteworthy and made such a worldwide impact that we need an article on an untranslated Japanese manga on the English Wikipedia Rackabello 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No Japanese Wikipedia page = not notable. Doceirias 18:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Diet of Worms. Non-Admin Closure New England ^{(C) (H)} 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edict of Worms

Edict of Worms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

User:Franky210, the original nom made this comment: "The content of this article is exactly the same as the second half of the article Diet of Worms and a subsection in the article Martin Luther." Nom made discussion improperly and forgot to sign, so I fixed it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Diet of Worms ~ Infrangible 22:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• delete it has been merged-Turtopotamus{{SUBST:Image:Turtopotamus.JPG 03:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep (for the history), merge and redirect. The Diet of Worms is an important event and it is quite possible that spin-off articles like this could be created at some point, but with the amount of content there is here now, it is better in context as part of the larger article. Deletion is out of the question, as a previous version of this page has already been merged with Diet of Worms on a previous occasion, and the page needs to be saved as a redirect for the edit history according to the GFDL. (By the way: Somebody in Worms should take a photo of the large Luther monument there.) Pharamond 05:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to Diet of Worms, I see no other reasonable option. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Diet of Worms. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, content already merged with Diet of Worms. --Targeman 00:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, no need for two articles on basically the same thing. Bearian 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Opus (magazine)

The result was Speedily deleted by SchuminWeb per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

No secondary sources, nothing to establish notability, nothing to say that can't be said in the student union article. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7/A1, no assertion of notability, no context Rackabello 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Student publications are not inherently non-notable (see Blitz (magazine) or Tharunka). However this article needs some content and reliable sources. Recurring dreams 12:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreleased Limp Bizkit songs

Unreleased Limp Bizkit songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced WP:LISTCRUFT, no Relaible sources can be found for many of these songs, and being leaked on myspace isn't a source, violates WP:NOR as well Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not a single source anywhere. Any editor could easily add Twinkle twinkle little star in the list. I'd still like to point out that if it was the list of all songs that were released by the band and the info could be either found in other articles and/or with reliable sources, I would've voted keep. Unfortunately this is not, and will never be the case for this article. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see any UNreliable sources, much less RELIABLE sources. Listcruft. Deletecruft. Yescruft. -WarthogDemon 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Loads of unsourced stuff. Listcruft as well--JForget 22:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of sourcing. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brighton Mall

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

Sub-stub on non-notable mall. Only GHits are for the strip that replaced it, so I would assume that the enclosed mall was demolished before the Internet age. Either way, it's just not a notable mall. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete view - no secondary, reliable sources to establish notability. Bridgeplayer 20:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Bridgeplayer. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A mall with only A&P and W.T.Grant as the anchors is not likely to be notable, even if someone went to a serious effort to find sources. DGG (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a commercial entity, and we need strict requirements on sources affirming notability for such businesses, in order to discourage spam. Unless sources can be provided, the article should be deleted, or merged into the article about the parent community. --Elonka 16:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Merge" would not have been too different given the already-present coverage in the target article. Sandstein 06:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Student Voice (newspaper)

Student Voice (newspaper) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This newspaper is already covered in the college article. Insufficient notability for its own article. Lacks the multiple, reliable sources necessary for WP:N. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 20:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete This is borderline, it seems quite a controversial paper with some interesting history, just not enough of it to warrant its own article. Equally many SU papers have controversial surroundings as they are written by young, often idealistic individuals who are not yet fully aware or experienced with what they should and should not write. Merge and delete will be best for this content. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 16:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I think, in truth, there is already sufficient at Pensacola Christian College#The Student Voice. Bridgeplayer 02:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and mention in the college's article. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Week delete unless sourced--it might be sourcable, if there were someone with the knowledge prepared to go to the effort. DGG (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per WikipedianProlific and Bridgeplayer. Bearian 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete student newspaper. No opinion on merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 21:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ARG Conservation Services

ARG Conservation Services (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completing incomplete nom made by an IP. I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - this reads a lot like marketing copy. It has no independent reliable sources, and I got under 300 Google hits on the name, with three tangential mentions on Google News Archive. The company doesn't appear to meet corporate guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• delete I work for an engineering firm, and while this is a rather Wikified article, it still reads as engineering firm copy. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 content into Disney family, then redirect to the aforementioned article. —Kurykh 04:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Mae Disney

Sharon Mae Disney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete and redirect Merge and redirect to Disney family per WP:NN and WP:BIO. Subject is not notable. Strothra 19:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Walt Disney Lugnuts 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

*Delete and merge what can be salvagedMerge and redirect into Disney family. Philanthropy does not in and of itself mean notability. Blueboy96 19:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Disney family. Nom, recall that "delete & merge" is not permissible under the GFDL.--Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Disney family, per Blueboy96. This is not a keep. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• merge and redirect. Not independently notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, spam. Sr13 21:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Codeferret

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

Contested prod. Vanity and spam for a commercial product; no evidence of notability. Note that the author is User:Codeferret, and the edits to this article are his only contributions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Spam. User's edits all appear self-promotional/spam.--Michig 19:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete also agree that this is a spammer. Corpx 19:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as {{db-spam}}, so tagged. Total spam. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, G11 Vanispamcruftisement, high WP:COI as well. Editor warned. Blueboy96 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no assertation of notability, WP:SNOW. Shell ^babelfish 05:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donkey Races Qld

Donkey Races Qld (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability since the article was tagged in April 2007. Google searches turned up naught. I assume it's either a non-notable event, or at worst, a hoax. Eliz81 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, just plain non-notable. Lack of GHits only proves non-notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There are some sources for donkey racing events in Queensland as part of rodeos see Google News Archive. [13]. However, there are no sources verifying the contents of this article which seems to be a hoax. The town of Buggerup referred to in the article is a clear indicator. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and ors. Nothing seems to be sourcable to substanciate the article. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Non-notable and mentions of Buggerup, Thorog-bred and Grayne-bred all point to a hoax article.--Melburnian 01:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, if it's not a hoax, then it certainly isn't notable anyway. Lankiveil 02:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC).
• Delete, while the subject is real, it doesnt jump out as something worthy of mention; and the article appears to be a hoax. John Vandenberg 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if not speedy per nom. No sources, could be a hoax per Capitalroadster's reasons. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete from ABC rural :The race involves a shot of tequila, a cup of baked beans, a sombrero and poncho, then hanging on to an unsaddled donkey as it races across the finish line. Sounds like a social club event to me!Garrie 22:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, even after disconting high school, keep votes, many of the delete votes came before the article were expanded. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairfield Union High School

Fairfield Union High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NN. Non-notable School Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 18:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It has been agreed about a thousand times that all high schools are notable. Hawkestone 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Also agree on the consensus that HS are notable Corpx 19:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• N Delete no verification of notability in reliable, independent sources is provided and no WP:Notability policy supports the automatic notability of high schools. Without sources proving notability, it needs to go. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, this is a very short article provided very little info more then the location and school district. I would say merge with the school district or with Lancaster, OhioJForget 22:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• KeepStrong Keep, :It was trivial finding multiple independent references for the info in this stub in the first page of Google hits. High Schools issue diplomas that are recognized by the community at large (especially employers) so this is prima facia evidence of Notability. Dhaluza 00:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Those are trivial mentions and dont really add to the notability of the school. Corpx 04:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I said it was trivial to verify the info in the stub. Notability comes from recognition of the school's graduates by the community at large. Dhaluza 10:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Article has been improved, and now contains info about a successful Title IX challenge, which is more than enough to establish Notability. Dhaluza 09:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no consensus that all secondary/high schools are notable. Each school has to be judged on its own merits and must conform to WP:N. The article as it currently stands is nothing more than a directory-style entry. The sources found do little more than prove that the school exists. If the article cannot be expanded it should be deleted or merged with the appropriate location article. Dahliarose 13:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my view of school notability. Eusebeus 13:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep valid high school stub. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Borderline Keep — Barely notable, but possibly it can be expanded or merged into the city article. — RJH (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"A school is notable only if it has attained some distinction for something other than its normal operation as a school." -from WP:SCHOOL. No longer an official WP policy, but can we take a look anyways? Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 18:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I am sorry, but this was always a silly statement. On this basis, and for consistency, we would delete most articles on malls as 'as not having attained distinction for something other than its normal operation as a mall', most footballers as 'not having attained distinction distinction for something other than their normal occupation as a footballer' etc :-) TerriersFan 18:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no third-party references present. I think the "all schools are notable" concept has fallen by now. Wikipedia is not a directory. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools, and should be expanded.--Absurdist 22:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I promised myself I would never get involved with school deletions again, and I haven't even read this article, so I won't comment on it. With that said, Absurdist, I mean no disrepsect, but are you f&%!ing kidding? The guy who voiced pedestrian #162 in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City falls under the jurisdiction of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, but that doesn't mean we need an article on it! To whoever closes this AfD, I'd urge you to disregard the above comment, as it makes absolutely no sense and gives zero rationale as to why this page should be kept. -- Kicking222 23:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The above comments illustrate that I am not the only person who considers high schools to be notable. While I am admittedly unaware of the consensus on the issue, I am familiar with WikiProject Schools, whose members are committed to improving these articles. In addition, a beyond-trivial video game character is not a fair comparison. I would agree that the lunch lady of this school (which would be closer to your example) does not deserve her own article (although I'm willing to read a debate). --Absurdist 00:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but your point still is not valid. Tons of Wikiprojects have highly devoted members, but that does not mean that everything that could have an article should. For a more accurate comparison, we're talking about a school falling under the schools WProject. An indie film nobody that never saw a theatrical release is still a film, and would thus fall under the film WProject, but it should still not have a WP article. Having a project attached to something neither adds nor confirms notability. Again, I haven't read this specific article (and am consciously not doing so), but I can tell you that the mere fact that there are people devoted to creating and improving school articles does not mean that any individual school is necessarily notable. -- Kicking222 00:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete there is no non directory content, except the quotation of the totally non-notable school song and mission statement. The first two comments say that we have agreed by consensus that all high schools are notable--they seem to be mistaken, based on the comments here, which show no such agreement, and the comments & closings of all previous high school AfDs in the last 6 months at least, where those with little content have been uniformly deleted . The argument that such even should be the consensus is not helped by content-free articles such as this one. (There is more agreement that it is possible that they might all be notable if enough effort were put into finding out, but such is true of a great many things).DGG (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, 400 Google News Archive results, 96 results on .oh.us, and 29 hits on .gov. A upmerge to Fairfield Union Local School District would be appropriate. John Vandenberg 02:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As currently modified by all those committed to improving school articles, the article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability under the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 02:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Alansohn and others. EagleFan 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jayvdb, Alansohn, EagleFan, et al. High Schools should be presumed notable, although not all High school are notable. Bearian 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the distinction--given that you agree they are not all notable, are you arguing they should have articles in WP anyway? DGG (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I am sorry but because high schools issue diplomas does not equate to validating an article on every dang one of them. Just have one article about high schools, state they issue dipolmas; if you feel a need for a list of schools add it in that single article. These caliber of articles are a melange of trivia and almamatercruft. This is an encyclopedia; not the farmer's almanac, the local newspaper, or trivial pursuits. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a significant high school with the necessary secondary sources to meet WP:N and involved with newsworthy controversy. TerriersFan 23:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimella Tunstall

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

I propose to delete this article on the base of WP:NOT#NEWS. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A shocking crime, but coverage has been primarily local except for some of the early reports. News filler, if it bleeds it leads, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Appears to list links to Fox news articles. Do you have any reputable news sources? ~ Infrangible 22:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I thought the subject was notable at when I produced the article, but Wikipedia is not a news source and time has shown the subject to not be notable. Gold Nitrate 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orc Creation

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

Unsourced original research. Prod removed by author. OnoremDil 18:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No sources, original reseach, per nom. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 18:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fictional topics arent notable unless they've received "significant coverage" from (non-fictional) independent sources Corpx 19:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:OR on a topic that is treated more fully (and more judiciously) in Orc (Middle-earth). Deor 01:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom; my head is spinning. I thought I was an SF fan, but this is cruft. Bearian 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Star Wars clone trooper legions

List of Star Wars clone trooper legions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vague definition of what a "legion" is ("just a group"), suggesting WP:OR for some entries' inclusion here (e.g. "squads" and "regiments"). In general, looks like an arbitrary list of non-notable make-believe units. No citations to reliable sources. --EEMeltonIV 18:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:NOR.--Bryson 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Transwiki to Wookieepedia - No notablity established for these and no citations Corpx 19:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yet more listcruft, and as per WP:NORPedro |  Chat  20:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - So in-universe and devoid of references as to be potentially unsalvageable, little reason to believe that some of the groups described in the article exist in any officially released fiction from Lucasarts et al, no assertion of notability. I'd be a little iffy on even transwiki'ing it in its current state. MrZaius^talk 15:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-noteable, unreferenced and uninteresting to the average reader. If there was some clear military structure behind the 'Clone trooper legions' then perhaps this could be downsized and placed into an appropriate star wars related article but its effectively just a list of random fictional military units. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 16:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ged Dalton

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

Contested Prod. Never played 1st team football in the 4 league divisions failing WP:BIO. Delete. BlueValour 18:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 19:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I see he's on trial at Carlisle United. If he is successful, he may then meet the criteria and the article can be resurrected but, yes, as it stands now, 'not notable'. --Malcolmxl5 19:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Never played a game in a fully-professional league. Number 57 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Lets wait for the result of this trial, he looks like he is impressing Carlisle United [14]. Kingjamie 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as never having played for a team in a fully professional league. Maybe he will do if this trial goes well, but as it stands, this has been created prematurely. Robotforaday 21:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - waiting for the result of a trial is not a strong enough reason to keep. Non-notable, with pointless name-dropping (Blackburn Rovers) included in the article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasSpeedy deleted by administrator NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). — Pascal.Tesson 09:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Stops Time

Alice Stops Time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. There's been a bit of a fight over the speedy-deletion tag. There is a minimal claim of notability made in the article (namely participation in the Montreal POP festival). However this is a very very minor festival and there seems to be little third-party coverage to support an article for the band right now. Pascal.Tesson 17:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No notability established Corpx 19:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I looked at this when I was reviewing new articles and considered tagging it for speedy deletion. The mention of the (future) festival appearance was the only thing that stopped me. Nevertheless, this is basically just another myspace band with no evidence of notability. Deor 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shiny Pokémon

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

Very non-notable game mechanic, this garbage only merits one sentence much less an entire article. Basically, the entire article can be summed up in this sentence: there is a 1/8600 chance of catching a Shiny. Zxcvbnm 17:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say merge into Pokemon game mechanics article. It's a good home in there. Toastypk 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, deserves only a one sentence mention in the main game. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Pokémon game mechanics. There really isn't much in the article except for some overly technical details and some anime references. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, valid Pokémon topic, but move to the correct title of Alternate colour Pokémon. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as outlined by Brandon Dilbeck. It's such an insignificant part of the game that little more than a paragraph (at best) is warranted, especially considering there's absolutely no change to the game other than "it looks different!". AllynJ 00:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Brandon Dilbeck. Also, Non-notable? 85k+ results on Google prove otherwise. Metrackle 00:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If that was re: my comment, non-notable? Maybe not. Insignificant as to the playing of the game? Entirely. AllynJ 12:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as NN per nom. Bearian 19:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g7, author request. NawlinWiki 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sesquapedalian

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

This article is a dictionary defintion with the main entry misspelled (it should be "sequipedalian"). Sesquipedalian exists but as a redirect to Longest word in English, but I don't know how useful a redirect that is given that the word "sesquipedalian" is not actually used in the text of Longest word in English. I submitted this for a proposed deletion but the article creator removed the PROD tag. I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 17:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's already in Wiktionary, and "sesquipedalian" does not mean "longest word in English" but "talking using longer words than are necessary" (long words are often necessary), so I agree a redirect to that article makes no sense. --Charlene 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Agree to deletion - as creator I have considered the advice herein and have decided that as it exists in the Wikidictionary, it is unneeded as an article. However I am not the one who created the redirect. I know it is not the longest word in English (isn't the longest word antidisestablishmentarianism", anyway?). Sesquapedalian 17:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--Zxcvbnm 17:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)
• Delete, Just a dicdef, page is already on Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Philippe | Talk 19:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Tagged for speedy deletion per Sesquapedalian (talk · contribs), above. Adjectives are poor starting places for articles, generally. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Folie de pourquoi

Folie de pourquoi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Reference given is a three word definition. Gsearch only gives a book that lists the term in a passing mention. Previous prod was contested. Fabrictramp 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Move to Folie du pourquoi, the correct term (note "du", not "de") and one found in hundreds and hundreds of medical dictionaries, including many found on a Google search. Alternatively, transwiki to Wiktionary. I think that if something shows up in numerous independent medical dictionaries it's likely to be notable, but it may only be a dicdef. --Charlene 17:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Charlene. If this appears in medical dictionaries and encyclopedias, it is worth keeping, even if it is only a historical description of a rare symptom, and is unlikely to expand past a stub. Some subjects can be exhausted by stubs, but remain worthy of keeping, and this sounds like it might be just such a thing. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • nominator's comment: the name change sounds quite reasonable to me.--Fabrictramp 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (and move per Charlene). I found a 2005 textbook reference, albeit brief, labeling it a rare subtype of OCD. --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've moved the page since this should be done in any case. Although I have to say I'm still not convinced that we can reasonably expect this article to be anything but a sub-stub. Why not simply list it in the "Symptoms and prevalence" section of OCD? Pascal.Tesson 21:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Because it isn't a symptom of standard OCD. It's a separate form of OCD. Listing it under "Symptoms and prevalence" might lead people to think that it was a common symptom of standard OCD, which would be misleading. --Charlene 00:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Transwikify and delete if all that can be said is that it is defined in medical dictionaries and textbooks. That's the very essence of a dicdef. DGG (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep - I'm not convinced that there is no literature on it; is there a "Wikiproject Psychiatry" that we can get involved in this? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 08:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stage show

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

Article is nothing more than a definition and probably could not be expand to anything but. Perhaps redirect to something else, but I'm not quite sure what. --omtay38 15:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to stage (theatre). I don't think that's too limiting an article. --Dhartung | Talk 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect is a good solution. It keeps a search friendly link to a good article that covers the content. --Stormbay 02:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Christian

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

I've debated this one for a long time, and finally decided to nominate for deletion. For starters virtually all the infomation on the page is referenced from www.davechristian.com. As the reference material is all from the subject's website, there is no real verifiability. Second, the whole thing reads like an advertisement/shrine to David Christian. As a serious, not casual, student of American military history, I have to admit I've never heard of David Christian. While I don't doubt the man is a veteran, and probably earned the awards listed, the article claims he is the "Most Decorated American officer in the Vietnam War." Fine, except that the same has been said of many other people. "Most decorated" is a highly subjective term, and usually self awarded by people, as the Pentagon, to my knowledge, never refers to anyone as the "most highly decorated." There are plenty of people who earned Distinguished Service Crosses, are Vietnam veterans, etc. but aren't necessarily notable. The only article that links here is Silver Star, and only because one of the editors to this article added his name to that article. The article has pictures showing him with famous people, but that does not confer notability. The book he wrote is out of print, so apparently not a huge demand for it. I guess to sum up, this seems more like using wikipedia as an advertiment space/shrine than an encyclopedic article, and is unverifiable from third party sources. The tone of the article doesn't help either, nor the fact that most of the editors on the page have edited only this article, or other ones to point to this article. Nobunaga24 15:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong and very speedy delete My suggestion--do it now. Obvious G11 ... the most blatant vanispamcruftisement I've ever seen. Blueboy96 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin Take any "keep" votes with a truckload of salt--the article is linked on the guy's Web site. That of course assumes that this isn't speedied or snowballed. Blueboy96 16:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. No independent third-party non-trivial sources to confirm anything that's said here, and after 20 minutes searching I can't find any on Google. You'd think Vietnam's most decorated soldier would have been written about in articles on the war or on veterans, millions of which are available online, but I can't find any, which makes me question even his existence. Anybody can create a website. I'll assume good faith and not cry WP:HOAX, but again, you'd think such a highly-decorated veteran would be mentioned by somebody. --Charlene 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Look at the last reference. Callelinea 17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:VSCA applies with all the peacock language and the passel of gladhanding photographs. Promotional activity for his motivational speaking career, basically. I can see G11 but the guy does have some claims of notability making it a little borderline. --Dhartung | Talk 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Question: I've searched in the Wikipedia policy space but haven't found a policy on notability of military veterans. Are there guidelines for military people biographies? Surely being a veteran or a serving member or even a medium officer is not enough. I assume high officers (generals and admirals) are notable. Colonels? Are medal winners automatically notable? Some medal winners and not others? Hu 17:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:MILHIST#Notability is probably the closest thing to a written version of the normal conventions in this area that's available; it's not all that revealing in this case, though. Kirill 21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep, He is decorated War Veteran, SEVEN purple hearts, yes the article needs work, but it can easaly be edited. Al we have to do is neutralze the article.. This guy is VERY NOTABLE. Callelinea 17:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Keep in mind that purple hearts -- even multiple purple hearts -- are very common. They are not given out for bravery or merit but for sustaining an injury in a combat environment. Note that John Kerry famously has three and no visible injury from any.--Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of independent verification. As to User:Hu's question, I think that the ordinary WP:BIO guidelines should apply. Namely, the military person should have been discussed in "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" to warrant an article. Military rank should not be a criterion in itself. --Metropolitan90 17:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I edited the article a bit and added more references, I think this article could not satisfy most of your objections. Callelinea 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing to neutral for the time being. --Metropolitan90 04:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Weak Keep after a thorough cleanup (especially the "Youngest Most Decorated"). Medals plus appointment to VA tips it for me. As far as I can tell, he was awarded the DSC, but how that qualifies him as the most decorated, when there were Medal of Honor recipients in the Vietnam War, is beyond me (by quantity maybe?). The Ronald Reagan reference returns "page not found" and the lack of third party references is troubling. Clarityfiend 17:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reagan Web page working now. He won the awards in the 1960's. Most of the references are third party references.Callelinea 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Steppin' Out reference seems to have stepped out. Clarityfiend 20:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, references have been added to assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I still don't see an assertion of notability based in references. --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• All of his multiple awards?Callelinea 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Proof that they exist? (Note: a Purple Heart is not a highly notable award.) --Charlene 00:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Seven Purple Hearts, Distinguished Service Cross, Americas 2nd highest award in Combat for valor ;Two Silver Stars America's 3rd highest award for Valor in Combat ;Bronze Star Medal, Bronze Star Twice nominated for the Medal of Honor Combat Infantryman Badge Air Medal (for 25 combat assaults from a helicopter) Two Vietnamese Crosses of Gallantry(Vietnam's second highest military honor), Not enough medals for you, not notable enough? Callelinea 02:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Those of you who have never heard of David Christian would do well to understand that he was also the person responsible for getting the seed money to build the The Wall in Washington D.C. for Vietnam soldiers who were killed in action. If it wasn't for David, our veterans of all wars would not be receiving the benefits they are very much in need of and definitely deserve. Someone has been messing with this page before I was asked to watch over it, and we would do ourselves and any veteran an injustice if this information was removed. Please note that David still works on behalf of veterans of all wars to this day (July 14, 2007) and continues to search for POW's. I will correct whatever is wrong or not allowed on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serinwing (talk • contribs) — Serinwing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep -- cut down if you think there's cruft, but he's certainly notable, and Philadelphia Inquirer did a profile. Deletion is not the only answer. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Yes the article needs massive cleanup but I had no problem finding: Association of US Army profile that documents most of the material^[1], his being a major interview in two documentaries "VietNam the 10,000 Day War" and "Making Sense of the Sixties: Picking Up the Pieces, V.5", on the board of two major petroleum companies--including one that now has an exclusive concession from Vietnam if I understood the SEC filing correctly, that he was offered Director of the VA by Reagan, and mention of a US Senate Campaign. He's also a Fox News talking head on military matters, and may have been the one responsible for the "Baghdad Bob" nickname. Hard to tell because Fox has two David Christians in the same area of expertise, the other one being a Navy vet. At any rate, while I disagree with his politics in most matters he's definitely notable.Horrorshowj 07:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the AUSA page is without context, but I believe related to the release of his now out-of-print book in the early 90s. It could also be a member profile page - there are no "back to the main" page links, and a backwards links check shows nothing[15]The Philadelphia Inquirer article is also related to the release of the book I think. The AUSA bit relates his working during the Carter admin, but not which postion, and states Reagan offered him a position, but he turned it down - to be asked for a job and to do the job are two different things. Running for congress in itself is not notable; getting elected is. Many of the "keeps" here are offering further evidence of notability/outside verification, but no links to that verification. The "strong keep" above is by a user who has made all but one of his less than 100 edits (at this time) during July, and many of those edits to AfD debates. The only outside verification of an award I have seen is the DSC - and I can't get the last link on the article to open to see what it has. The other remain to be verified. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence - seven Purple Hearts and 2 noms for the MoH are notable, but they require proof, not just an assertion from the subject's website. If he is a Fox News contributor, don't just say it - give us a link, or source. If he was in documentaries, a link or some kind of proof please. I'm also surprised that if he does have these on his resume, why aren't they on his website (unless I missed it)?--Nobunaga24 10:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing the AUSA page, it's even worse than you noted. Every other hit with.../wpc/ is a member benefits type page, and the article doesn't appear to be reachable through the sitemap. I apologize for including it. I thought if that organization vetted the article, it would be an acceptable reference for confirmation of it's contents. Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone outside their IT deparment is even aware it exists. Found proof for fox news, Navy Capt is a screwup by fox.

Strong keep was an overreaction. To make sure that I understand, are you saying that if his award history can be verified you'd agree that he meets notability?Horrorshowj 01:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say he is closer to notability if that can be verified. But as far as American service personnel, without a Medal of Honor, I would say that awards alone are not notable. Thousands and thousands have received the medals listed, and everything below the DSC are, while admirable, basically not enough to get in an encyclopedia. The DSC, IMHO, in and of itself, isn't enough notability to get an article. I guess for me, everything listed in here individually aren't notable enough to justify an article, and the sum of them really isn't either. Add to that the unverifiability, I decided to list for AfD. When I say I mulled it over a long time, I'm not exaggerating. My first edit on this was over a year ago, and I thought of listing it then for AfD, but waited to see how it evolved, checking back every once and a while. But in all that time, it hasn't improved much. Incidentally, he isn't a talking head for Fox News as far as I can tell. I found one reference that refered to a David Christian as a "consultant" to Fox News, but not what type of consultant. I also can't find anything on this particular DAC Conulting firm other than davidchritian.com--Nobunaga24 01:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you on how long you waited, and I understand nominating it for COI if nothing else. I just think the article's fixable. I didn't appreciate you taking a cheap shot about my AfD participation and time on wiki. I've participated in a lot of AfD but only voted to keep 4-5 of them. One of those was procedural, because the article was less than 8 hours old and the nom admitted he knew it didn't meet speedy. Not only against deletion policy, it's just rude. Horrorshowj 04:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the article needs some good housecleaning but decorated veteran involved in advocacy activities and who's activities are covered in a book, I am for giving this BLP time to improveStatisticalregression 02:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete as per back and forth above. Barely notable. Bearian 19:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

you guys need to chill out...your angry over an article, get a life —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDF55 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)