Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - AfD has run its course, and the only person who said delete was the nom. Could really do with a rewrite though. Non admin closure (not that it makes a difference). Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 01:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simko Shikak

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

The article lacks enough sources, and the person doesn't seem notable enough to have a separate article. It looks more like like a political editorial promoting this fringe person, rather than an encyclopedic entry. A Google search [1] only generates 25 results, mostly from political forums. So, either the article should be expanded with neutral sources asserting the notability of this person, and then re-written in a neutral manner or deleted. --Mardavich 02:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep if expanded and written in neutral manner. Harlowraman 05:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Looking for information on a early 20th century political figure in google will of course get only the modern controversial use made of the events. A clearly important historical figure, and there will clearly be more sources--in print. DGG (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Bad nomination. Simko is considered as a great Kurdish hero. Brusk u Trishka 10:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• General Comment I've done some further research in other languages, and Simko Shikak was merely a Kurdish warlord who is notorious for massacring Assyrians, but the article gives the impression that this person was the "president" of some imaginary republic that never existed and does not mention anything about the massacre of Assyrians at his hand. If the article is to be kept, it needs to be re-written to address these serious inaccuracy and POV problems. --Mardavich 20:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Simko the Great, saved our race from an evil plot of foreigners to annihilate Kurds. He bravely and rightfully killed a lot of soldiers of foreigners who today label themselves as Iranians, Although that term is only 100 years old and that is another story :)

Brusk, you are something else, really. Chaldean 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article needs more sourcing and cleanup, but as DGG points out sources are far more likely to be in print than electronic form. Edward321 01:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He set up a Kurdish republic in 1923, and this has been reported by New York Times and Washington Post. see here [2],[3]. He is also mentioned numerous times in scholarly articles about Kurdish history, see here [4]. More English sources will be added soon. Also note that on books.google.com, Simko get 123 hits[5].Heja Helweda 02:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• I have no opinion on whether it should be deleted or not but what I will say is that the article is horribly written and is filled with terminology inappropriate to an "encyclopedia". If you're going to keep it, someone with at least some command of the English language should spend the time to fix it. Otherwise get rid of it, as it'd be one less badly written article to have to come across. IrantoIran 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bell's prime number theorem

Bell's prime number theorem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Named "theorem" with zero Google hits and zero sources. Violates WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N. Creator removed prod without giving a requested source [6], and concedes being unable to prove it's by Bell.[7] As explained at Talk:Bell's prime number theorem, the result is a trivial consequence (at least for a mathematician) of p²-1 = (p-1)×(p+1), so my OR concern is mainly about the name and claim it's by Bell. No known source mentions this result, and it seems questionable to call it a theorem (a word usually used about harder things). Author has mentioned possibility of rename. This might fix the OR and V problems, but it's still non-notable. It appears a trivial and uninteresting observation that is not worth merging anywhere. A mathematician could make scores of similar observations about divisibility properties of specific polynomials. PrimeHunter 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- total hoax and WP:OR. My math skills aren't that advanced, so I'm trusting the nom's skills. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You know, out of my curiosity, I decided to verify what he says, although it is just pure common sense at times. A prime number p greater than 3 must be odd and have a least significant digit of either 1, 3, 7 or 9. It definitely is not divisible by 3. p-1, p and p+1 span a range of 3 numbers, so either p-1 or p+1 must be divisible by 3. At the same time, both p-1 and p+1 are even, and since their difference is 2, one of them must be divisible by 4 as well. So, multiplying both of them together would give something that is divisible by both 8 and 3, and hence p² - 1 is divisible by 24. There you go.--Kylohk 01:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Excellent! Now please proof read Original proof of Gödel's completeness theorem (just kidding). PrimeHunter 01:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's true that there are no search results for this theorem. It may or may not be true, but if no other academic sources mention it, it's likely to be OR, and not suitable for wikipedia. Better wait until at least 1 textbook mention his "theorem".--Kylohk 00:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Almost trivial factoid about prime numbers which was most likely known way before Bell even learned to read. It may still be that somebody, somewhere decided to name this factoid Bell's prime number theorem but from a mathematical standpoint, that somebody was misguided and I don't believe anyone has followed suit. Pascal.Tesson 02:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Everyone agrees that this theorem is true. PrimeHunter, an expert in prime numbers, believes that it is trivial for him (though his proof about p>=17 is scarcely convincing) but it is original researchto deduce that it is trivial for others, and despite the supposed triviality he did not know the result already. If it is not by Bell, the article could be renamed, but not deleted. As for original research, it cannot be both trivially, obviously true and a dubious piece of original research.--Bedivere 06:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia is not for everything that is true. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability. This result sounds like something that might be asked as an easy exercise to students. A harder exercise might be: Prove "PrimeHunter's prime number observation": If p is a prime above 61, then (p⁶⁰-1)/6814407600 is a composite integer. That doesn't mean we should create PrimeHunter's prime number observation. PrimeHunter 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Query Bedivere, we really need the answer to this question: Have you seen some book or scholarly article that either called this something like "Bell's prime number theorem" or attributed it to Eric Temple Bell? If so, which book or journal? Tell us enough so that we can go to the library and find it. Michael Hardy 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep if textbook uses appear. If this is the way its taught to students, it should have an article.DGG (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem being that there isn't a single reference supporting this use. The prime number theorem is a deep result in number theory and no scholar would be foolish enough to name anything "X's prime number theorem" when it has nothing to do with the distribution of primes. I have 4 number theory textbooks right here in my office, none of which support this terminology. Pascal.Tesson 15:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The connection with Bell is not verifiable, and the result itself is too trivial (or not notable, in Wikipedia-speak) to have an article. The article should be kept if the theorem is stated as an important result in books or articles, but I doubt that will be the case. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. May be integrated at some point. Gregbard 15:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (at most, put to a page where trivial fact about prime numbers are stated). Jakob.scholbach 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There are no sources to connect this theorem with Eric Bell, and I believe the claims made above that the result is not notable. EdJohnston 01:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oli Filth 01:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Move or Merge With a simple google search I found these: [8] [9] [10] and this slight twist of subtracting the square of two primes:[11] (which has been known since at least 1878: [12]), so the zero google hits in the nom is incorrect. Also deleting every math topic not interesting to a mathematician is ridiculous--WP is for everybody. Agree that attributing it to Bell is unsupportable, so a move with history and delete the redirect would be appropriate. Dhaluza 02:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This does not show notability; it's just an isolated fact. For instance, the last but one link, which has the generalization that the difference between the squares of two numbers is divisible by 24, mentions "This is an observation i made one night while trying to go to sleep". Not every verifiable fact belongs in Wikipedia. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Good find. Zero Google hits referred to the alleged name. None of your links mention Bell and none of them call it a theorem. They don't mention that (p²-1)/24 is composite for large p. And prime numbers is mathematically a red herring: The divisibility by 24 holds for any integer p that is not divisible by 2 or 3. The observation about 24 dividing p²-1 for prime p > 3 has been mentioned by some sources but it appears unnamed (a sign that it's not important) and I don't see what it could be moved to. I don't think the mentioned sources are enough for own article per WP:N, and there is not enough material for a meaningful article. A merge would leave a redirect on an apparently non-existing name, and there is no edit history that matters since a source can be quoted directly for the single line that remains if the unsourced part is removed. If references giving more significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are not found, then I think the one-line observation could be added to an existing article, either Prime number#Properties of primes or Square number#Properties. Bedivere can add it if he/she wants the edit. PrimeHunter 03:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It could be meged to 24 (number) and/or Prime number for example. I agree that a redirect from this name is problematic, but I don't know what else to do. We could move this to 24 mystery per the first web page. This is also a one-source name, but at least it does not involve a person. I disagree that the lack of a name makes it unimportant. There are also textbook problem references if you take the search to Google Books. Dhaluza 04:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – unless someone comes up with a reliable sources attributing this as a theorem to ETB.  --Lambiam 05:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Eric Temple Bell. I have read one of his non-fiction books (re: Mathematicians). So it seems to fit there in his bio. Ghits are not perfect. Possibly needs more expert attention. Bearian 19:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Are you saying you have seen this in a book by Bell? It's true that GHits are not perfect, and it's possible but currently unverified that Bell has ever mentioned this observation. Dhaluza found multiple mentions of the result and none of them mention Bell (one was from before his birth). PrimeHunter 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I see two possibilities. Either this was never claimed by Bell as a theorem of his in which case it has no business in his article or Bell did claim this as his. In which case he was somewhat of a clown since this cute factoid is trivial and has nothing to do with primes as noted above. Either way, this has no business in his article. Pascal.Tesson 20:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Prime number and, as a second idea, into Eric Temple Bell The first one makes sense, the second one can be corrected by editing if someone acquainted with Bell's works knows that it's not his original idea. Mandsford 00:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So far two commenters have wanted this to be merged into Eric Temple Bell. But one reason for this AfD is that there is no evidence connecting this theorem to Bell, so his article is not an appropriate merge target. EdJohnston 02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - despite several requests, there is no source that actually connects this "theorem" to ETB. Without a verification of this supposed connection, all that remains is a trivial and non-notable factoid about numbers that are co-prime to 24. Gandalf61 18:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against recreation if someone can show that they meet WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Humbleweeds

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

Non notable band from Northern Ireland that fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. Myspace-based band without significant coverage in third party sources. The redirects to the page of band member names should also be deleted. Appears to violate WP:BLP with mention of ex-band members. Non-encyclopedic content that is unsalvageable without some additional references. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, appears to fail WP:BAND and WP:V. BLP issues could be fixed if notable, but if not notable best solved by eliminating the article until notability is achieved. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - had actually heard of them and was going to say keep until I read the article. No references or external links, and a fairly immature to make matters worse. Any verifiable source of information for former members substance abuse or is that just slandar? Irishjp 12:58, 30 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 - the improvements made during the debate are what differs it from the nom, and it's not keep-worthy per consensus. Non admin closure. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 01:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrie D'Rozario Murphy

Barrie D'Rozario Murphy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete was speedied before with less meat on it; now re-created, does a single mention in the "who's news" section of the WSJ confer notability? The article as written seems a little spammy, but regardless, this seems like a typical nn ad agency. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, three reliable sources is not how you presented this article. They won the $100 million United Airlines account despite being a startup, which is pretty much unheard of in the advertising business. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep., the WSJ is the newspaper of record in the field, & there's 2 other good refs. DGG (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The WSJ actually doesn't cover advertising all that well (It's all that fuzzy human factors stuff that gets in the way of parsing 10-Qs.), as the limited coverage shows. The NYT ran a full story, the AdWeek story is from one of the two "of record" publications for the industry (Advertising Age being the other; their story isn't free), and the Chicago Sun-Times is from the city where the United Airlines headquarters is located, so they cover everything the airline does. Crain's also had a story. In any case, well beyond the basic requirements of WP:CORP.--Dhartung | Talk 09:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, with the addition of the New York Times the article now has 5 credible sources. Dmdaily10 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per recent improvements to cites by Dhartung et al. Bearian 19:55, 31 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 - notable and verifiable according to consensus. Non admin closure. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Tesselschade Visscher

Maria Tesselschade Visscher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable poet, with only digital versions of his poems as references, with very few other sources on the web. Jmlk17 22:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Notable character of the Dutch Golden Age and the Muiderkring. I added a ref to the small bio at the Rijksmuseum, but there are plenty of Dutch references (eg here is an excellent one) and I can find a Britannica one when the site's up tomorrow. By the way, she's a she. Gordonofcartoon 02:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There's plenty of information on the web about her and she's clearly notable. Just because a Dutch poet who lived from 1594-1649 hasn't appeared on Letterman is no reason for deletion. I wonder how closely the nominator actually read the article as it clearly states that the poet was a woman. Nick mallory 06:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Easy keep Also notable as an engraver, not that that is yet covered. I agree with Nick m above. Johnbod 01:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable and sourced, just a stub that needs more content. Bearian 19:57, 31 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 00:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyramid Mall at Ithaca

Pyramid Mall at Ithaca (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOT#DIR, almost entirely a list of stores in the mall. "Pyramid Mall Ithaca" (the mall's actual name, no "at") returns relatively few Google hits, with no reliable sources to be seen, so article fails WP:RS and WP:V too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• DeleteNot only does it violate WP:NOT, the mall itself isn't very notable, since the search engine results don't give any non-trivial reliable sources.--Kylohk 01:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete only directory information. DGG (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete fits the definition of a non-notable mall. I've been there, its very run of the mill Rackabello 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And now that I read it again, I think its speedy criteria. Not only is it not notable, no assertion of notability, valid or otherwise is made Rackabello 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N (notability not shown) and WP:V (no asserted facts are cited to reliable sources). -- But|seriously|folks  09:18, 30 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. --Coredesat 06:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bristol Commons

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

Non-notable shopping plaza. Page has been tagged for cleanup since March with no improvement. Consists almost entirely of a store listing, violating WP:NOT#DIR. Also fails WP:RS and WP:V (be warned: there're about 48 million apartment complexes and subdivisions with the same name). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Violates WP:NOTGorkymalorki 06:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Also, listcruft of red links and past tenants. Bearian 19:59, 31 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 00:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enfield Square Mall

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

Non-notable mall, several bits of WP:OR within ("Many mistook it as related to nearby Westfield, Mass."). No noteworthy GHits in a search, so it also fails WP:RS and WP:V Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete this one has at least some information about significant changes in ownership, but its unsourced. Delete unless RSs can be found. DGG (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I tried, unsuccessfully, to find sources, and that's why this is at AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if sources are found, I'm not sure how change of ownership makes it notable. Oli Filth 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete no assertion of notability, A7. Having said that - in case someone simply states for some reason it's not a valid candidate for speedy deletion because it's not exactly "a company" - the article makes no effort to assert WP:N so I cannot see how the subject meets WP:N. Unsourced, so WP:NOR/ WP:RS.Garrie 21:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oli Filth 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• declined to speedy it's here, let it be discussed. If nothing else, the article asserts notable tenants. this is not enough to justify a keep, but I consider it enough to prevent a speedy. Better to have it closed in another 2 or 3 days if nobody does find sources. DGG (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Dunlop

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

Person of borderline notability, who has attracted a lot of poorly-sourced controversy. The current article on Hitz Radio adequately covers the subject already, and there is nothing notable about Dunlop that cannot be discussed there. Delete. JulesH 22:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Or redirect to Hitz Radio like original page did. Also, seems that several sock puppets were used to create both the article and the discussion. Rysin3 22:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - This guy is only "famous" in his local area for lying and making false claims, as he does not have 40 employee's and does not have 80.000 slots. If you would look around the internet for his (unlicensed) radio station, you would mostly find complaints from people who feel that it's not ok to claim things that aren't even near the truth. Sadly some papers believed him and gave him credit for his lies. I suggest you check out the [wikia article] on him. Wouttonio 17:29, 31 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 back to Prime quadruplet for now. Editors are welcome to instead move the information to prime k-tuple per talk page discussion - the AfD merely determined that the information should be kept. Non admin closure. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 02:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prime quintuplet

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

Trivia. Is this useful enough for an article?? Georgia guy 21:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge back to prime quadruplet where it was copied from [13], or to prime k-tuple. Prime quintuplets (sometimes called prime 5-tuplets) are mentioned in sources in connection with other prime tuplets, for example [14] at MathWorld, [15], [16] and [17] at The Prime Pages, the 10 largest known at [18] (normal site currently down due to computer problems), [19] in Mathematics of Computation, [20] and [21] in OEIS. I think definition and records are also listed in Paulo Ribenboim books. Prime quintuplets are notable enough to mention in broader articles, but not enough for their own article. PrimeHunter 23:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge. I agree with everything Primehunter has said. Why this artificial separation between 4 and the larger integers? Even the first sentence, defining prime quintuplets, is almost impossible to read because prime quadruplets have not been discussed or wikilinked. WP is not a scrap book. Mathsci 07:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep, or else merge back. CRGreathouse t | c) 01:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is a notable concept. If you merge back, you'll still need a redirect, so what's the gain in having a redirect rather than a short article?--Bedivere 06:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Bedivere. Iotha 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to prime k-tuple. (I think merging to prime quadruplet could be very confusing). I'm willing to change my mind if someone shows me two or more math journal papers demonstrably concerning themselves specifically with prime quintuplets (e.g., if the title says "quintuplets" rather than "var-tuplets." PrimeFan 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Every sentence in the article is pretty trivial or subsumed in the fact that right now it's not known whether there are infintely many prime twins Jakob.scholbach 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to prime k-tuple but don't delete. Though trivial to me, this sort of thing is nevertheless of interest to some mathematicians. Is it less interesting than prime twins? Certainly. But we haven't yet seen a valid argument to delete this. --JayHenry 14:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to prime k-tuple per PrimeHunter & PrimeFan. Anton Mravcek 00:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someday Never

Someday Never (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Band of doubtful notability; article does not include anything to satisfy WP:MUSIC and I couldn't find anything more substantial online. They have had local press coverage and have won an award, but not, so far as I can tell, a significant one. CIreland 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Update by nom. Just noticed they were already deleted by AFD but it was some time ago. And the article has had several contributors since re-creation. CIreland 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC at this point. Their label doesn't appear to be notable, and while they discuss touring, it doesn't look to have reached the "national" level suggested. Reliable sources aren't turning up for me at this point; there appear to be some local pieces, but it doesn't look like the band has moved any closer since the last time. Plus, all the article is at this point is cut-and-pastes from the Amazon writeups of its two albums and a third interview piece, so it's copyvio anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Tony Fox. dissolve^talk 02:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Vanous

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

Not an especially notable individual, Only claim to notability seems to be some small MMORPG or working for microsoft, Possibly created by the person who is the subject of the article. Google searches yield minimal reliable sources as well. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete created by Vanous so most likely a WP:COI. Non-notable. IrishGuy ^talk 21:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• While George Vanous is no Scott Isaacs, he has built notable sites like the click-less gallery and has engineered declarative-syntax AJAX framweworks in uncommon ways. Vanous 22:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, fails WP:BIO and other notability guidelines. Possible G11 speedy for the number of external links. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - like TenPoundHammer said it fails WP:BIO. It's completely unsourced and on top of all that, like Irishguy says it looks like it was created in breach of WP:COI--Cailil ^talk 23:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:BIO. Sourcing is weak (the subject gets minimal return on searches), the conflict of interest is concerning. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Interesting work, no notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Obvious autobiography, but not by itself, the only reason to delete. Violates WP:N and WP:V. Bearian 19:14, 30 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. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soul Kiss (video)

Soul Kiss (video) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable...Video? I googled it and can't seem to find many sources, especially reliable ones. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Non-notable video, fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A laser disc only released in Japan?! Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 20:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Town East Mall

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

Sub-stub mall article about a non-notable mall in Texas, gives hardly any context. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing that is notable about one generic mall with no notability out of thousands. i ^{(said) (did)} 21:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom --NeilN 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Expand Looking at the site [22] and its store directory, the mall has well over 100 stores, didn't get the exact count but probably around the 125-150 range. So it is a significant mall in the area that's for sure--JForget 22:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm well aware of the mall's size; it's been established before that size does not equal inherited notability for a mall. I have tried to expand this page, but there's just nothing to add from any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete i think its been accepted that these articles need to be more that a store directory--and that the lists of stores are not encyclopedic contentDGG (talk) 06:17, 30 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. --Coredesat 06:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mon Mothma (starship)

Mon Mothma (starship) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Imaginary starship with no real-world notability. While significant in the Star Wars universe, it has no significance in the real world. User:Kappa removed a prod, citing in the edit summary that it is a "top-importance star wars article", but I don't see any particular evidence of that. EEMeltonIV 21:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• DeleteNo real world notability at all. Could re direct to something but is good to get consensus here to the fact that it does not need an article of its own.Obina 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per merged article being deleted anyway. — Deckiller 01:00, 30 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(nomination withdrawn) Peacent 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Water export

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

This isn't an article--this is an essay, and a highly POV one at that. Blueboy96 21:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete as an essay, violation of WP:NPOV. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An essay not an article. Obina 22:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

*Pull the plug per nom. --Targeman 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, greatly improved by Bláthnaid. Good work. --Targeman 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete There is an article to be written on this subject but I can't find it in this essay. --Stormbay 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep I've rewritten the article. I think it's up to scratch now. <crystal ball>If Wikipedia is around in 2050, this will be one of the most edit-warred articles on it, unfortunately. --Bláthnaid 14:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Sterling job. Consider my nomination withdrawn. Blueboy96 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Nice job! There's the article!--Stormbay 18:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. I ask that those editors who are involved with the organisation please review Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline to determine if and how they should contribute to the article. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SIPTA

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

No sources, questionable notability. Possibly violates WP:NOR Rackabello 07:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete by our notability standards, it's not quite good enough, but there are 600 helpful Google hits for anyone who wishes to undertake a rescue mission. It's basically a small academic department with a unique purpose. Shalom ^Hello 20:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I did not think there will be enough sources, but the various activities of the society have been cited about 120 times in Google Scholar .DGG (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Legit WP:CORP; referenced by ACM. --Aarktica 15:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Company seems to pass WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Keep" The society is quite active. It has organized several conferences and also summer schools for PhD students. Thomas Augustin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.246.7.157 (talk • contribs).

• Keep: as indicated, the society is active and is also known in the (narrow but arguably valuable) area of automated reasoning, statistics, decision making; among its sponsors is the Int. Journal on Approximate Reasoning, a publication by Elsevier. Fabio G. Cozman (note: I am a member of the society, and have added a few changes to the pages already).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.107.99.45 (talk • contribs).

• Keep: SIPTA held its fifth ISIPTA conference in July (2007), at Charles University in Prague. The refereed proceedings for all five conferences are available on-line at the Society's homepage. This is an active research/teaching organization. Teddy Seidenfeld (Secretary for SIPTA) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teddy Seidenfeld (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. Sr13 03:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riverside Mall

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

Overly redlinked page on a non-notable mall that's been torn down for a strip mall. Fails WP:RS and WP:V for lack of sources; possibly fails WP:NOT#DIR as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete this and every other mall article that doesn't assert notabilityRackabello 06:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N (notability not shown) and WP:V (no asserted facts are cited to reliable sources). -- But|seriously|folks  09:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is no assertion of the importance of the subject. It is clearly another mall; bigger than some; smaller than others. --Stormbay 22:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as being non-notable per nom, Butseriouslyfolks, and Stormbay. Just another upstate NY mall. I can not see how it can be asserted or verified as being notable. However, contra Rackabello, there are notable malls east and west of Utica. Bearian 20:09, 31 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 A7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saratoga Mall

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

Non-notable shopping mall in Saratoga Springs, fails WP:V and WP:RS. Almost completely lacking in wikilinks, tagged for notability since April with no improvements. Also seems to have a bit of WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yet another A7 Rackabello 06:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N (notability not shown) and WP:V (no asserted facts are cited to reliable sources). -- But|seriously|folks  09:18, 30 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 deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 10:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairmount Fair

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

Yet another non-notable mall. Nothing but a list of stores, clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Has been tagged for notability since May with no improvement. No sources, thus failing WP:RS and WP:V too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7 Rackabello 06:42, 30 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. --Coredesat 06:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M. Ahmed Quraishi

M. Ahmed Quraishi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I originally nominated this about ten months ago, as part of a group AfD for Soni Motors Thailand, Auto Retailing History in Asia, Motor Walah, M. Ahmed Quraishi, and Quraishi Motors (link here). I felt the final decision to keep this page a little odd given the overwhelming consensus, and since then there's been little change. Last month, an SPA called User:Basit Quraishi (WP:COI, anyone?) made a minor "expansion", but there's still no demonstration of notability, and no external sources cited. "Ahmed Quraishi" gets barely 1,000 Ghits despite a Kuwaiti journalist owning the ahmedquraishi.com domain, and I get zilch in the Google News archives. I also get nothing for "M. Ahmed Quraishi" outside WP and its mirrors. Also, please note that the one external link, to Historical info on M. Ahmed Quraishi, is hosted by the Soni Group, and specifically mentions "Please read about him in Wikipedia encylopedia" with a link to this article. --DeLarge 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - unless it can be sourced, verified and rewritten, it needs to go. There is no way to know if the article is accurate because there are Zero sources. There are major WP:MOS issues since there is no context to the article's discussion of M. Ahmed Quraishi. I really can't see why is was kept in the previous AFD--Cailil ^talk 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete First auto importer in India, or "Asia outside Japan" even, would be notable if verifiable, but given we can only find subject-connected sources, this fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 10:19, 30 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. --Coredesat 06:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salmon Run Mall

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

Non-notable mall in New York State. Appears to have had plenty of turnover as anchor stores go, but that still doesn't make it notable. Fails WP:RS and WP:V (and maybe even WP:OR as far as what constitutes an anchor store). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This page was created by User:Danfifepsu, an indefinitely blocked user (he wasn't blocked at the time). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Tagged as A7 (non-notable group/establishment/whatever). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've declined the speedy. I've seen malls of this size get kept at AFD, so I think it needs a full discussion. As to the creator being a banned user, we have that to allow us to quickly delete, say, an RFC that a sockpuppet creates against an old enemy. We don't need to apply it if they make legitimate article contributions that we may want to keep.--Chaser - T 05:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete as not very notable outside of Jefferson county - Fort Drum, New York area. Can we find cites? Bearian 20:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't appear notable. North America is covered by malls of all sizes and shapes that can barely be distinguished one from another except by the slightly different mix of stores. A mall needs a hook to be notable.--Stormbay 00:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:Carlossuarez46, non-admin closure by... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Western Lights Plaza

Western Lights Plaza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable strip mall in Syracuse. Very little context, tagged as an orphaned article lacking importance since April. Fails WP:RS by a long shot. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7, doesn't even try to assert notability Rackabello 20:39, 29 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 Has been speedy deleted Pascal.Tesson 20:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copper Country Mall

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

Non-notable shopping mall in Michigan. Only sources are official website, mall owner's website, plus Geocities and Angelfire (my own Angelfire site, no less -- and no, I didn't put the link there myself). A Google search turns up nothing reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, Violates WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM Rackabello 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're fast. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Snatch the pebble from my... Clarityfiend 20:40, 29 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raghav Ranganathan

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

This is about an Indian Kollywood actor, I'm not quite convinced of notability. Possibly fails WP:BIO, he's described in the article as an "up and coming actor" and the roles he's had seem to be minor and several are still in production. None of his releases are in English, raising the question as to the appropriateness for the English Wikipedia verses the Tamil Wiki, it seems like most of his impact (if any) has been to Tamil speaking Indians. There are also issues with WP:V, the only source is IMDB. Rackabello 20:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: The article is still in creation. Re-add the tag after 3 days. Thank You. Universal Hero 20:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if verified. Nanjupuram is a notable film.[23]; as the lead actor in a notable performance, I'm willing to consider him notable as well, presuming that he is the Raghav mentioned as starring in it. Let's find a Tamil speaker for further advice. Also enwiki is an encyclopedia written in English, not an encyclopedia restricted to writing about American, British, and Australian Anglophone topics. cab 02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab 02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is an English language wiki, it doesn't mean that non english speaking people have no place here. Nick mallory 06:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as of now, needs verification. Bearian 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per cab and Bearian. However, article needs to be referenced. Antorjal 20:57, 31 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. One 03:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damenlou Hotel

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

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 19:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete view - this is a small hotel with no notability demonstrated in the article; much of the article being a promo for the hotel. Needs multiple independent reliable sources to be kept. Bridgeplayer 21:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable hotel. Keb25 09:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This hotel is notable due to its location, its name, and its birthplace of a local dish, all of which are obvious in the article (although the later seems a tad over-writtern). Size is not the only determinant of notability.--Huaiwei 13:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - none of these claims can be relied upon, at present, since the article is wholly unsourced and fails WP:V. Where are the multiple, reliable sources attesting to its notability? The dish may be notable but the creation of a single dish hardly makes a hotel notable particularly since there is no sourced link to the dish's creation. Bridgeplayer 22:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - affirming the nomination, I have cleaned up the article and have removed copyvio material lifted directly from the website and affirming it fails WP:V --Russavia 22:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, article needs just a clean-up. —Sengkang 15:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, birthplace of a popular dish. --Vsion 02:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly rename to focus more on the restaurant than the hotel. Kappa 07:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually I think this is an RS, so the hotel is notable all by itself, although the restaurant is more so. [24] Kappa 07:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually I think this is an RS.... Nope. --Calton | Talk 23:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable due to birthplace of dish, & connection to famous restaurant. Could do with expansion, but notable enough. --Belovedfreak 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No relevant sources establishing notability. Agathoclea 20:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Travel guidebooks aren't reliable sources, and there's not even really an attempt to assert notability. {[WP:NOT|WP is not a travel guide or hotel listings service]]. --Calton | Talk 23:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- for the nth time, needs cleaning up does not equal delete. ever heard of locus standi? Chensiyuan 03:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sloane Court Hotel

Sloane Court Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 20:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Article is original research, whilst notability of hotel is to come. --Gavin Collins 08:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Keb25 09:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article could be speedy deleted as spam. It reads like an advertisement. Vegaswikian 21:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shangri-La Hotel Singapore

Shangri-La Hotel Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The article does read like an advertisement for the hotel and could very easily be a copyedit. The only problem with deleting the article is that the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore is a world famous hotel. While it does not have some of the history as other famous hotels, in the 20th and 21st century its notability should warrant some sort of article. Perhaps a face-lift would be a more constructive alternative for anyone willing to take this on. If no one does, then it should be deleted as per nom. Mkdw^talk 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Hotel is notable for being the root for the name of the Shangri-La Dialogue, among other things. Yes, it needs a clean up etc but it should not be deleted. --Rifleman 82 03:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable material here, and sourced. DGG (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Chensiyuan 13:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. —Sengkang 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Besides the above, the hotel's architecture is even notable enough to be selected to be featured in a publication and exhibition by the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore. Non-notable and unencyclopedic?--Huaiwei 16:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per above, flagship, and first hotel in an international chain. Luke! 02:07, 31 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. --Coredesat 07:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negara on Claymore Singapore

Negara on Claymore Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 19:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no encyclopedic information. DGG (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I read the article and where is the notability? The assertion about mineral water in the pool, is of no importance. This is technology that has been used in spas for years! So being the first hotel pool in Singapore to use it does not appear to make the hotel notable. If there is something notable here, then merge per WP:LOCAL. Vegaswikian 22:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Lack of notability. Keb25 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no other arguments for deletion. --Coredesat 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meritus Mandarin Singapore

Meritus Mandarin Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 19:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The tallest building in the centre of swanky Orchard Road since its completion, the flagship hotel of a major hotel chain, features the tallest revolving restaurant in the country and another famous restaurant serving the de-facto national dish of Singapore, and the article forgets to mention that it also happens to be the de-facto venue for many functions by the Government of Singapore. Non-notable? Hardly.--Huaiwei 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Non-notable? Possibly not. Totally unreferenced? Absolutely. To repeat here: Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted. --Russavia 01:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wonder if you are acquinted with this website enough to realise there are alternatives to AFDs, and there are other outlets available for individuals who are out to be disruptive.--Huaiwei 06:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as per above. —Sengkang 15:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per Huaiwei. Claims to notability inlcuding housing the tallest revolving restaurant in Singapore, has received awards from reputable and notable organizations. Re-wording not deletion is required. Luke! 01:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ritz-Carlton Millenia Singapore

The Ritz-Carlton Millenia Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 20:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Major luxury hotel in center of very internationally important city. Designed by notable architect Kevin Roche. --Oakshade 20:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup (despite being nominator!) I think this one clearly has above average notability but the focus of the article should be the hotel's history, architecture, place in city's history. Not on its flat-screen TVs. Pascal.Tesson 20:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Tall enough to be an automatic keep. Golfcam 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per awards (that need references). Luke! 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - let's not go down that road. Do we know if any of these awards have any sort of significance? Are we going to create an article for a model of toaster every time a consumer's guide proclaims it is the best new toaster of 2007? As I said earlier, hotel articles are worthless if they are centered around the quality of the hotel's services. Pascal.Tesson 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Context and point of view are required. Granted in the real world we all specialize in specific occupations/industries, we are not all aware of other industry distinctions and awards. These awards clearly demonstrate the notability of this hotel property in the hospitality/tourism industry. Luke! 02:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Chensiyuan 13:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, enough said. —Sengkang 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It may look like a mere slab block, but it was featured in a publication and exhibition by the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore, for instance. Is its architectural merit disputed? Non-notable and unencyclopedic?--Huaiwei 16:00, 30 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. Peacent 02:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Pan Pacific Singapore

The Pan Pacific Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 19:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- "Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder." -- this is the relevant passage on WP:NOT pasted wholesale. Please explain how you use the guideline to support your conclusions. Or have I looked at the wrong guideline? Could you also please elaborate on the "procedural norm"? I understand that there exists the Pan Pacific article, but then this will be more a case of merging. Moreover, for the hotels which you have tagged for deletion but do not belong to a chain, what then? Are standalone hotels inherently not notable? Context is key, but one must be apprised of the context, rather than overestimating its visitation, of which the latter is unnecessary since the relevant articles set out the context already. Chensiyuan 01:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Pan Pacific Hotel is the tallest building in Marina Centre, and has been a prominent building since its completion. Its architectural merit far outstrips the notability of its usage as a hotel, even thou its flagship restaurant also happens to be reknown locally.--Huaiwei 10:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, enough said. —Sengkang 15:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Peacent 02:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conrad Centennial Singapore

Conrad Centennial Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a major hotel in Downtown Singapore, and is part of the major cluster of hotels in the Marina Centre area. Needs expansion, that's all. —Sengkang 15:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The only businessman-centred hotel in the Marina Centre area which features a distinctive facade which was reputed to be reflective of the architect's love of the number 13, going by the narration during a Duck Tours ride. If this hotal is of little significance, I doubt a tour like that would bother to single it out from the forest of buildings out there.--Huaiwei 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

On Huaiwei's point, 13 in Cantonese is a lucky number. —Sengkang 16:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep If the facade is distinctive--and it certainly seems to be so from the picture-- it should be mentioned in the article. That it wasn't, shows the lack of care in writing these articles. Writing a large number of similarly commercially oriented articles in a formulaic way invites deletion.DGG (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Bottom

:Nick Bottom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) The entire article is essentially a lengthy plot summary. A decent summary of the play exists already in the A Midsummer Night's Dream article, there's no need to branch out unnecessary detail into separate character articles. Also, take note that the character does not have substantial notability outside of Shakespeare, and I fail to see even enough notability as a character in the play to warrant an individual article. Calgary 19:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion, as they too are primarily plot summaries, and fail to satisfy the notability guidelines:

Lysander (Shakespeare) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hermia (character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Helena (A Midsummer Night's Dream) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

Peter Quince (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Francis Flute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Robin Starveling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tom Snout (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Snug (A Midsummer Night's Dream) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

Calgary 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw all Yeah, so I've read over the whole discussion, thought about it, and it does seem that my original nomination was a bit erroneous. While the state of most of these articles is indeed terrible, it seems that they satisfy the notability requirements, either individually or as part of a collective, and that there is information with which the articles can be expanded. Other issues may exist, but they are of the sort that can be settled without deletion. Sorry to put you all through this, in the future I'll put more thought into any nominations I may make. Calgary 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete All Wikipedia is not Sparknotes™ Rackabello 20:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Please don't be so hasty. These articles can easily be expanded more than it may seem on the surface. Take the Rosaline article, for example, a GA. Rosaline is a character in Romeo and Juliet who is never seen and has no speaking parts. Compared to other Shakespearean characters, her importance is miniscule. However, since so much is written about Shakespeare and his plays, quite a bit of information could be gathered and a good article was put together. This was largely a test to see whether other, similar articles, such as these could be expanded. It has been proven that they can. Another article that has been expanded this way is Sycorax (Shakespeare), another unseen character in Shakespeare's The Tempest. This article was once a mere summary on a disambig page. The characters you have listed all have appearances and speaking parts in A Midsummer Night's Dream, and would thus probably have even more scholarly information about them. Clearly, the answer then is to expand, not to delete. Wrad 20:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. WP:FICTION says that minor characters (with very rare exceptions) do not merit their own articles. Clarityfiend 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe that these are all exceptions, as it has been shown in my above comment that even the most minor Shakespeare character has more than enough scholarly comment to merit his or her own article. Can you say this for any other fiction author? Probably not. Clearly this is the exception. Wrad 20:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Shakespeare is arguably the most highly regarded and most frequently studied writer in history, so I agree that Shakespearean characters would likely merit exception, but still we must review everything on a case-by-case basis. Shakespearean characters do not have inherent notability, and while there are under certain circumstances cases in which minor characters may be worthy of their own article, this is certainly not universally applicable. Surely you can't say that a character like Egeus or Philostrate has the same notability and is subject to the same amount of literary analysis as Rosaline. Yes, there are exceptions, and those exceptions may occur more frequently within the works of someone like Shakespeare, but when judging whether a case merits exception, we must judge it fairly and independently of other articles. If someone can establish that all of these characters have notability, and are frequent subjects of substantial literary analysis, that would be a very reasonable justification for keeping them. If not, the fact that other minor Shakespearean characters are notable enough to have their own articles is irrelevant. Calgary 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Rosaline is probably the least notable of Shakespeare's characters. I could easily say that "a character like Egeus or Philostrate has the same notability and is subject to the same amount of literary analysis as Rosaline." Someone just needs to expand these articles on a case by case basis, not delete them. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Wrad 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Giving an article the benefit of the doubt is probably the worst approach to take on Wiipedia. Let's take a look at Philostrate, for example. Philostrate appears in two scenes, and has around five lines. His connection to the plot is minimal, if not nonexistant. So how do you propose we expand the article? Or what about the article on Peter Quince, or Snout, how may those be expanded? I have to say, ignoring a significant lack of notability in favor of the idea that because they're Shakespearean characters they're "probably notable", even though fact says otherwise is a very bad idea. Calgary 21:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Watch me do the impossible, then. I'll try to expand what I can in the next few days. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. If I can't find anything, then it probably isn't out there. Wrad 22:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I just did a simple search among scholarly books and found a good amount on Nick Bottom, Egeus, and Philostrate already. I'm sure plenty more will be found easily with little effort. Look forward to some expansion. Wrad 22:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all to Characters in A Midsummer Night's Dream and prune mercilessly for grade school lit. crit. and original research. There are several books and book-length works on the characters Hamlet and Falstaff. There will never be a book about Philostrate: he and the other nominations fail to meet WP:FICT. The nominator's rationale(WP:NOT#PLOT) seems a bit irrelevant to me. — mholland (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep most but delete Egeus and Philostrate. I'm fairly sure that reliable academic sources could be found for each of the lovers and the Rude Mechanicals, but Egeus and Philostrate are so minor that they almost certainly wouldn't have sufficient sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please take a look at the recent changes to the two articles, especially Philostrate. Egeus is a bit trickier, not because there is so little about him, but because there is so much. Beyond being a character in Dream, he is also in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and Ovid's Metamorphoses, to name just a few. I'm trying to figure how I'm going to reorganize it. We may want to turn it into a redirect and merge it with Aegeus. Wrad 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree about a redirect from Egeus to Aegeus, or even a merge. If there is not substantial information for Shakespeare's Egeus to have it's own article, then Egeus should redirect to either A Midsummer Night's Dream or Characters in A Midsummer Night's Dream, if we end up with one of those. Take note, Egeus in A Midsummer Night's Dream and Aegeus the mythological figure may be related, or based on the same character, but they are not the exact same. It would be like redirecting Puck (Shakespeare) to Puck (mythology) (and by the way, Puck's article could use a good deal of work). Calgary
      • I'm not so sure. Take a look at how other character articles deal with characters that span several stories, such as Green Knight and Troilus. It's not as messy as you might think. It's actually the way scholars discuss characters, constantly comparing them to previous and later stories, commenting on the changes made and why the author may have changed them. Besides that, I'm confident that Egeus can stand on his own. I just stumbled across a solid essay on him, and scholars generally consider him more important than Philostrate, who has a pretty fleshed out article. I'd like to pick a fight with whoever the goon was who made all of these lame character articles, though. There is so much out there to add to them, and now I have to clean up his or her mess. Grrr! In any case, I can guarantee you that none of these articles is going to be deleted. There's just too much information on Shakespeare and I'm just too determined to flesh them out and prove it to you. Wrad 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Just a request, could you strike out Philostrate on the list above? It doesn't really match any of the reasons for deletion given in the AfD anymore... Wrad 04:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I'm kind of inclined to agree...I'd withdraw the nomination for Philostrate, but as embarassing as it is, I don't quite know how to withdraw a nomination for a single article that's been nominated as part of a group. I beg your pardon. Also, I've been thinking, and while the individual characters themselves may not be terribly notable on their own, perhaps we could stand to have articles for the Mechanicals as a collective and the Lovers as a collective? I say this because these are two groups in which the characters are very closely associated, with a good deal of information likely to be shared, as well as the fact that from a literary standpoint the collective groups may be of just as much interest and of just as much notability as the individual characters (if not more so). Your thoughts? Calgary 05:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Here's how I would withdraw the nomination: Remove his name from the list, create his own personal entry on the AfD, and then just say it has been withdrawn. When it come to talking about the groups as well as the individuals, I had also thought that might be an option. We'll just have to see what there is out there. I have run in to quite a bit about the Rude Mechanicals as a group, but not much about the lovers. Wrad 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all but with a stay of execution. Do not underestimate Shakespearean scholars , I take Wrad at his word that he has found several book length sources on most of these characters (and I find that easy to believe). As for the suggestion of redirects...well, it looks like Puck (Shakespeare) might become a redirect if it isn't worked on soon, and I think this is a good pattern to follow. If a well sourced article on a Shakespearean character is not possible, the spelling of that character in Shakespeare should redirect to the main mythological or historical reference. Calgary, you say (understandably, and 'technically' correctly) that Aegeus and Egeus are not the same. This is actually not true. Spelling conventions had not been systematized by Shakespeare's time (not for English or for Anglicized Latin and Greek names) . When he names his character 'Egeus', he probably (with the most certainty we have) means Aegeus (they'd even be pronounced the same, in fact). So a redirect or a disambig wouldn't be a bad idea. Oh, and your suggestion for an article for the Mechanicals and one for the Lovers is a really good idea in my opinion. However, you've got to leave room for a character like Nick Bottom, who has been written about to no end, to also have an article (IMO, that is). CaveatLector^Talk 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Spelling aside, what I was essentially trying to say is thatthere's a substantial difference between the Egeus of Shakespeare and Aegeus of classical mythology. Still, I feel the same (perhaps more strongly)about Theseus, however it seems that he and Hippolyta don't get their own articles as Shakespearean characters. I suppose so long as the Aegeus article makes at least some mention of A Midsummer Night's Dream a redirect wouldn't be too bad...Still, come to think of it, if Egeus is really Theseus's father, that would make the whole thing kind of creepy, no? Calgary 05:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (all). there is no character in shakespeare so minor that he hasn't been discussed in the scholarly commentaries. There should never be a need for a redirect. Its like characters in the Bible, as has been repeatedly been affirmed here. There is a difference between minor characters in Potter and in shakespeare--400 years worth of secondary sources, to be exact., DGG (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Bottom definitely desrerves a Keep on notability grounds; therefore I oppose the grouping of the other articles: they should be nomninated and discussed separately. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As highly notable as the author is, and considering the works are finite and the author is unlikely to produce many more characters, I'm inclined to believe the lesser characters inherit notability in this case. the_undertow ^talk 08:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Without commenting on some of the others, Nick Bottom is unquestionably sufficiently notable for an article of his own. AndyJones 13:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and do not nominate any of the articles a second time. They are plainly valid encyclopedic topics. RandomCritic 14:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I may be a bit biased, having written a majority of the Bottom article, but in defense of that article specifically, Nick Bottom is considered one of Shakespeare's most iconic character roles. If anything, the article deserves expansion by someone who has the knowledge and resources to expand on the history of the character and it's influence on theatre and on acting, of which I assure you, it has.Benjudah 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Runaway (Avril Lavigne song)

Runaway (Avril Lavigne song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article begins, ""Runaway" is the possible upcoming fourth single from Avril Lavigne's third studio album, The Best Damn Thing" — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No sources cited, much less reliable and verifiable ones. Extraordinary Machine 19:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not much to add here. Pure speculation, no sources cited. Delete PERNOM. Spellcast 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (even a Lavigne fan) but this WP:CRYSTAL, not official yet.--JForget 23:00, 29 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. --Coredesat 07:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Hucko

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

Second nomination. Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. All the sources for the article are websites related to Slovio, possibly created by Hucko himself. Amir E. Aharoni 18:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. When this article isn't promoting Mark Hucko, it's a magnet for vicious libel against him (edits which I've deleted a couple of times). I don't know who the guy is or why he attracts such malice, but it shouldn't be our problem. I don't think this article has anything in it that's worth the effort it takes to protect him from libel. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If an article is being vandalised often, since when is that an argument for deleting it? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. See my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovio (2nd nomination). I would not object against this article being merged and redirected to Slovio though, since that's what Mr. Hucko owes his notability to. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• delete unless reliable third-party sources are added to the article to establish his notability. BTW, I guess, since his entire article is sourced from his own webpage, that this passes WP:LIVING? Just want to make sure. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

with prejudice - I went to Mark Hucko's webpage, and not only does he link to the Wikipedia article on himself, but he posts the following: "It is just these limited minds of the inquisitors which have been suppressing the multi-level cosmological model and who have been erasing it from the search engines and from the Wikipedia. Just because the earth is flat - in their minds - it must remain flat also in the minds of the rest of the world." Given what seems to be an interest in promoting his own content on this website, I'd need even stronger persuasion that his page should be kept on Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

with more prejudice - Lower on his page, he also posts the name and home phone number of one of the people who argued for deletion of the Multi-level Cosmology article. I guess it's not kosher to bring that up, as an article should be judged on its own merits and not on a person's behaviour - but I think it's suggestive of something. Just, go read his webpage. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question Either this or the article on the language should be kept. I hope the closing is co-ordinated.DGG (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but i nominated both of them and i am watching both of them.

This is a non-notable person that created a non-notable language, so why not delete both?

Putting aside notability - i am not even sure that this person is completely real. The language is non-notable, but it is as real as the website slovio.com; but the person could be made up. There are no verifiable external sources, that the name of the creator of Slovio is Mark Hucko. Think about it. --Amir E. Aharoni 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless we come up with better sources. As it is, it fails WP:V and WP:A. If Slovio is kept, redirect to there. - Aagtbdfoua 01:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, also as a soap box for an obvious NN person with NN and nonverifiable ideas. He is "not even wrong." I agree with Rspeer that an ongoing target for POV edits must be deleted or protected. Bearian 20:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. At the original AFD I opted for delete, then sought assistance from our linguists, which prompted the following:

  Keep. He's the creator of a relatively well-known international auxiliary language (Slovio), so I don't see the reason why his biography should be deleted. We have articles for the creators of such minor IAL projects like Novial, Interlingue and Solresol, do we? So why not him? And in case you're wondering, Coelacan and Dweller; I am a linguist and I'm not in the least a fan of Slovio. — N-true 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On that basis, I remain a firm keeper. --Dweller 12:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I note that the nomiator has also put Slovio up for deletion. --Dweller 12:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for reiterating your opinion.

The problem is that there is no proof whatsoever that this language is indeed well-known.

Slovio is not the same as Novial; Although it didn't achieve the level of popularity of Esperanto, it was a work of a very notable linguist - Otto Jespersen. I am not so sure of what to make of Interlingue and Solresol, but the existence of articles about them is not a very good argument against deletion (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?, although it is not defined as a policy).

By the way - i am a linguist, too (i go to sleep reading Jespersen every night ...) --Amir E. Aharoni 12:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple proposal. Let's close this AfD as premature and concentrate on the Slovio article AfD. If Slovio is deemed nn and the article deleted, then as Hucko's greatest notability claim, his biog can be prodded and I for one would have no objections to it going down the pan. If Slovio is demonstrated as notable, it would inform this debate, if indeed anyone still wanted to bring Hucko's biog to AfD at any point. --Dweller 12:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have hundreds of AfD's under my belt, so i am not an expert on the bureaucratic process, but closing and then re-prodding this article seems quite redundant.

More than that - it is wrong. The problem of verifiability is much worse in the case of Mark Hucko than it is in the case of Slovio. As i said above, Slovio is definitely real, because the website slovio.com is real; it is just badly non-notable. Slovio is real because texts in it appear on slovio.com. But Mark Hucko cannot be verified as a real person - Mark Hucko are two words and a funny photograph on a website that was published by God-knows-who. (This link may shed some light on it: http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.slovio.com ; It does mention some Hucko under a Czech flag, although Liptovsky might be a place in Slovakia. I am totally confused by now.)

So the article on Mark Hucko should be deleted even if Slovio is kept, because it seems impossible to find any respected verifiable source for the facts that it presents. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(Moving back here) What's the rush? Establish Slovio notability. If Slovio is deleted, Hucko definitely goes. If Slovio is kept, then let's argue Hucko's notability/existence. --Dweller 13:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No rush - both AfD's will take at least a few more days to get closed. It will just be a pain to reopen 3rd nomination for Hucko. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

yabut - even if Slovio is notable (and I voted weak keep for that article), it doesn't mean that Hucko is notable enough to have an article on his own. "Notability is not inherited" is an important consideration here. My personal opinion is, Hucko information should be merged into a small section of the Slovio article, if there can be 3rd-party references found that establish his existence. This is a similar argument as to why we at Wikipedia, instead of having an article on e.g. a person who was the victim of a crime, generally only have an article on the crime - unless the victim is notable outside of the crime committed against him. I haven't been convinced by anyone that we should have an argument on Hucko, even if we assume that his Slovio creation is notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Hucko, I can presently support the idea of keeping the article on his invented language under the assumption that someone here will soon add third-party links to the article - but I can't support the idea of having an article on Mark Hucko himself, unless someone can prove he has 3rd-party-asserted notability beyond that of his invented language. Also, I feel Amir's above argument is a very convincing one - unless we can find 3rd party proof that Mark Hucko isn't (say) an internet sockpuppet, we shouldn't have an article on him. Does WP:LIVING even allow us to have an article on a person based entirely on "his" own cranky webpage? If so, I think that leaves us on shaky legal ground. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I maintain that if Slovio is deleted, Hucko must be deleted. If Slovio is kept, it importantly informs the debate on Hucko, not that Hucko necessarily must be kept too. --Dweller 13:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, giving you your point, we still need to determine whether there's any third-party proof of his existence, to satisfy WP:LIVING, and now's as good a time as any to do that. Though I also say above that even if Slovio is notable, notability is not inherited and therefore this argument could be independent. I'd rather the Slovio AfD be withdrawn instead of this one, for reasons given above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless properly sourced. Being a shameless self-promoter is not much of a claim to fame. Friday (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are maybe three reliably sourced sentences in this article and they wouldn't be out of place as a mention in Slovio. The rest of the stuff in this BIO is unimportant, unsourced, or both. SchmuckyTheCat
• Delete - No notability asserted outside of self-published sources. According to WP:V, articles should not be primarily supported by such sources. - Crockspot 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete level of verifiability almost nil. Level of notability... not much better, frankly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete personal promotion, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete No evidence that this person even exists; crankish claims; violates just about every Wikipedia policy (attribution, verification, notability, reliable source and the rest) Even is Slovio is notable, that does not imply that Mark Hucko is notable. His creation of non-notable psuedoscience also doesn't qualify for notability. Nor does unproven claims about immortality research. This should have been speedy deleted, instead of wasting Wikipedia's disk space with this AFD. Life, Liberty, Property 02:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shangri-La Hotel, Sydney

Shangri-La Hotel, Sydney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. Most reads like an advertisement. Russavia 19:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this and its an advert, not a encyclopedia article, so should be deleted. M♠ssing Ace 19:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per above, no notability. Luke! 02:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Google News and Google News Archive have a number of results for this hotel. [25]. Dick Cheney stayed there while in Sydney earlier this year. Capitalistroadster 02:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The Google news link provided above has a grand total of 4 items none of which are about the hotel itself (not even close actually). The fact that Dick Cheney stayed in that hotel is completely irrelevant as one would be hard-pressed to find a luxury hotel that has not had famous guests. At best, the notability of the hotel seems questionable but what really kills it for me is the completely inappropriate tone: this reads like a brochure and has no place around here. Pascal.Tesson 03:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• keep and of course clean--the tone can be edited.DGG (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, the tone can and should be edited. But what do we end up with except a sub-stub informing us that this hotel exists? Wikipedia is not a directory: if the hotel hasn't been the subject of significant third-party coverage, there's no point in keeping the article. Pascal.Tesson 15:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur, if it were the Old Sydney Parkroyal (now the Old Sydney Holiday Inn I believe), then sure it would be notable, as per Heritage Listing, but the Shangri-La Hotel (prev. ANA Hotel) has nothing notable about it, apart from obviously being a Shangri-La Hotel, which all had their own articles, regardless of notability. Dread the day when every Holiday Inn has its own article upon that basis. --Russavia 15:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Sounds like a tourist brochure. WP:NOT#TRAVEL. By all means bring it back if something significant is unearthed, but currently its a no from me. —Moondyne 10:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Major luxury hotel in a major city. Should be cleaned up not to look like an advert. --Oakshade 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#Travel etc. Alternatively, mention it at Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts.Garrie 03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Keb25 11:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - its also one of the taller buildings in Sydney, so there should be information about its construction, architecture, etc. Most skyscrapers in different cities around Australia and the world have articles for this reason. JRG 12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What in the article asserts notability? Vegaswikian 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shangri-La Hotel, The Marina, Cairns

Shangri-La Hotel, The Marina, Cairns (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable aside from winning an employment award. Russavia 19:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - article establishes notability. Luke! 02:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It does?!? You mean because it "received an award for Best Tourism Education and Training Provider at the 2006 Tropical North Queensland Tourism Awards"? With all due respect, that award is completely meaningless. The article does not establish any sort of notability.

That is your point of view only. Best employer awards are considered to be notable and well respected distinctions in some industries. Your point of view could be said of other industry-specific awards bestowed on other industry organizations. Luke! 06:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Industry awards can be relevant, but this seems a very local one. DGG (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Google News [26] and Google News Archives [27] gets plenty of results. An APEC Trade Ministers Meeting was held there recently. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You should not look at the number of hits but their quality. There is little of substance in any of these articles. How does holding a routine APEC meeting (note: meeting, not summit) make the hotel a topic of interest for an encyclopedia? Holding business meetings is what business hotels do. Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A simple line in the Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts will do. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and it isn't the Yellow pages. Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pascal. —Moondyne 10:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#Travel etc. Alternatively, mention it at Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts.Garrie 03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and (more importantly) WP:N and WP:RS. Zivko85 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Keb25 11:23, 31 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. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Makati Shangri-La, Manila

Makati Shangri-La, Manila (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. All hotels have an award or two or twelve. Outside of awards there is nothing notable about this hotel, just the same as having a good review in Zagats doesn't need inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Russavia 19:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - per all the hotel awards it has won. Significantly more than other hotel properties. Luke! 02:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The awards it has won are totally unreferenced so we can't be sure they really have won them? --Russavia 23:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts. This reads like a brochure of no encyclopedic value. Pascal.Tesson 03:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Major luxury hotel in financial center of Manila. Awards further notability. There's too much topic-specific content here to merge (along with all other Shangri-La Hotels) into another article. --Oakshade 16:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to appropriate article. One of the more notable hotels in the country. Shrumster 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable for it's awards, plus major hotel in Manila. Awards are now referenced. --Belovedfreak 14:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I just found an news article about it. Also seems to be the site of some political meetings in some news articles. However, I did not bother getting those articles as they don't depict the hotel but the events. --Lenticel ^(talk) 16:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Davies

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

Procedural nomination. An editor who claims to be Ian Davies requests that the page be deleted (see Talk:Ian Davies) and in any case, it's not clear that there exists sufficient reliable third-party coverage to build an article properly. Pascal.Tesson 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not a particulary well known betting site. Nice rags to riches story, but not notable enough to warrant inclusion. Mike33 - t@lk 19:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. This page was created a few years ago by my business partner, who believed it satisfied the minimum criteria for inclusion here. Since then, I have periodically kept it up to date and endeavoured to comply with all requests for citations and expansion etc from Wikipedia editors. However, the page's very existence seems a source of irritation to some, and it has often been vandalised. I certainly have no personal objection to its deletion - I am not a self publicist - not that my personal view is relevant to your final decision anyway. Wikipedia's editors will of course do as they see fit, and, fwiw, my objective personal view is that the page should be deleted. By the way, it's NOT a rags to riches story - it's merely a brief account of a moderately well off bloke (me) who launched an unfunded internet start up, which has 2,000 members but, due to the low-margin nature of the business, has not even reached profitability, hence he (me) remains moderately well off! A non story, in other words. - Ian Davies

• Delete. Arguably there is sufficient notability for BackAndLay (.com), to which information could be merged, but individual is close but short of WP:BIO, so there is no reason not to honor this request. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete This is truly borderline notable only, and I see no reason for not following the advice of the subject.DGG (talk) 18:54, 30 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 deleted as a mix of A7 and G11 Pascal.Tesson 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shangri-La Hotel Bangkok

Shangri-La Hotel Bangkok (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. All hotels have an award or two or twelve. Outside of awards there is nothing notable about this hotel, just the same as having a good review in Zagats doesn't need inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Russavia 19:00, 29 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. --Coredesat 07:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ritz Carlton Kuala Lumpur

Ritz Carlton Kuala Lumpur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. All hotels have an award or two or twelve. Outside of awards there is nothing notable about this hotel, just the same as having a good review in Zagats doesn't need inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Russavia 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - per awards that it has won. It has, on average, more awards than most average hotel properties. Luke! 00:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Either redirect to parent article or stubify to remove all the spam the article reads so much like a brochure that actually a lot of it is a copyvio from this brochure. This could almost get the boot as blatant advertisement. The nominator's point still stands: the quality of the hotel does not make it a valid encyclopedic topic. If there's nothing to say about the hotel beyond: "it's in Kuala Lumpur" and "it's very luxurious" then we are not a travel guide and this has to go. Pascal.Tesson 03:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree. This article is not just about a luxurious hotel in Kuala Lumpur. Though the article is about this, it is more about a distinguished hotel in Kuala Lumpur - not any average hotel in KL. This hotel has received several accolades that are well recognized by tourism professionals published by leading tourism/hospitality publications such as Conde Nest, Travel & Leisure, etc. Though copyvio is one area where we can agree, they are unacceptable. At most, re-wording not deletion. Luke! 06:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep one of the difficulties of nominated a whole group of similar articles at the same time is that people tend to get impatient and give the same argument instead of looking at the articles individually, and this one should be kept because of the awards, even if one thinks the others should not.DGG (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment As the notability of local business awards--and survey based awards-- was challenged in one of the afds above, I note that this has 18 awards, including 1 each from Bloomberg, and The Independent and 2 from Conde Nast -- I consider at least the first two of those as RSs, and Conde Nast somewhat reliable, and these make it notable, the rest adding somewhat. DGG (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Luxury hotel in major economically important city and per multiple awards as indicated by DGG. --Oakshade 02:13, 31 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 as non-notable business and pretty close to blatant advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 19:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Mercure Puka Park Resort

Grand Mercure Puka Park Resort (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. Russavia 18:45, 29 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 as blatant advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pudong Shangri-La, Shanghai

Pudong Shangri-La, Shanghai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. All hotels have an award or two or twelve. Outside of awards there is nothing notable about this hotel, just the same as having a good review in Zagats doesn't need inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Russavia 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep notable as a high-rise building (180 m, 43 floors). --Qyd 19:18, 29 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shangri-La Mactan Island Resort & Spa, Cebu

Shangri-La Mactan Island Resort & Spa, Cebu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. Russavia 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Being "the Philippines' largest and most exclusive deluxe resort" is most certainly an assertaion of notability, not to mention something that makes the topic notable. It's clear the nom is simply pasting the same sentence into every AfD in their hotel AfD spree without even reading the articles. --Oakshade 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment It is widely written on WP that Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted. This article, as well as EVERY article I have nominated do NOT cite multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources to establish notability, and hence, based upon those reasons alone, every AfD I have instigated is within warranted and within guidelines. And I stand by my nomination for this article. --Russavia 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Furthermore, the claim of notability of being the largest, is all well and good, I can claim that pigs can fly, but that doesn't make it true. And as per the article, its claim of being the largest is also hogwash, particular given this[28] --Russavia 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Response - The reliable source The Philippine Star says it is. That Waterfront Cabu City press release you cited doesn't even counter this article's (now referenced) claim. (You're not working for the Waterfront Cabu City Hotel & Casino, correct?) The claim was verifiable, but instead of tagging the article for a request for references from editors which would've been the responsible thing to do, you just went ahead and tried to delete it. Sorry, you don't own articles. --Oakshade 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

CommentAnd this reliable source[29] proves that your source is wrong (and out of date by some 6 years by the looks of it). And I know I don't own the articles, but it is ultimately the responsibility of editors to source their material, and it is made clear that unsourced material can be disputed and removed at any stage. But the way that these Shangri-La articles have been presented, they all come across as spam, so open it up to discussion. By the way, I think we need to remove the Philippine Star from reliable sources? ;) --Russavia 22:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note to closing administrator. When the article was improved by an added reliable source being provided, the nominator deleted the referenced material and its reliable source, [30] a very bad faith effort. For the benefit of editors, here is the referenced content...
  

Shangri-La's Mactan Island Resort & Spa is a resort hotel owned by Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts located at the island of Mactan, Cebu. It is the Philippines' largest^[1] and most exclusive deluxe resort, equipped with 546 guest rooms & suites.

1. ^ Loop, Honey Jarque. "A shangri-la at Shangri-La Mactan Island Resort", The Philippine Star, August 21, 2005. 

Editors and the closing admin can make up their own mind from this information. --Oakshade 22:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal Cmon Oakshade, I added disputed tags to the article, which you then referenced and removed my dispute tags, but due to links provided here (where I notice you have yet to comment on) I removed the referenced assertion in the article based upon 2 sources stating that the hotel referenced in the talk page is in fact larger, which negates any sense of 'notability' a hotel may have from being 'large'. You reverted this, to which I have re-added dispute tags, which you AGAIN removed. If you cared to refer to the talk page, as the tag says, you wouldn't need to post the above. --Russavia 23:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Further rebuttal, I also take offence at your claim of 'bad faith' edit, when in fact, the claim you put in the article was removed with a link in the talk page to anyother source affirming the 'largest' to the Waterfront Cebu. If anything, the edit was fully within zee rules, this is a case of you simply refusing to refer to the talk page. --Russavia 23:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Refer to this edit Oakshade [31] which was made a minute before I removed your content. I will be waiting for an apology from yourself. --Russavia 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The first link on that talk page post is to a press release - if you think a press release is a reliable source, you need to brush up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources.- The 2nd is simply an introduction to a news organization. --Oakshade 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If you would care to look at the edit made a couple of min after the correct link was provided. And this was before my last edit on the article (with a notation to refer to the talk page and before you posted what you did here. --Russavia 01:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, president shows up to the opening = notable. Kappa
• Delete "Not Notable" means "Fails to demonstrate how it meets WP:N - which in this instance means "does not include two independent references to reliable sources". Only reference is a press release. I think if there was more to be found then Russavia would have by now.Garrie 21:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shangri-La Golden Flower, Xian

Shangri-La Golden Flower, Xian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notabiliy.Garrie 21:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As is, not informative and no claim of notability. Pascal.Tesson 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant advert Pascal.Tesson 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traders Hotel, Kunshan

Traders Hotel, Kunshan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:29, 29 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. --Coredesat 07:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shangri-La Hotel New Delhi

Shangri-La Hotel New Delhi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nothing notable here. DGG (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Major $70 million [32] luxury hotel in major economically important city. --Oakshade 01:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability in the article. Being in an 'economically important city' is not notability. Vegaswikian 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable hotel. Keb25 22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hotel Helang

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

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I think it also reads kind of like an advertisement. Useight 00:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it is non-notable, but what can I do, as the author of that article to prevent it from being deleted? Acs4b ^{T C U} 02:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, you would need to ascertain exactly what makes this hotel notable when compared to every other 4-star hotel in the world. On a sidenote, as Langkawi is my fave island getaway, I would have thought that the Pelangi Beach Resort would be notable seeing how it was instrumental in the growth of tourism in Langkawi (but even then it would be pushing the envelope in an encyclopaedia). --Russavia 12:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no claim of importance and spammish. Pascal.Tesson 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Keb25 21:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no consensus. One 04:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Hyatt Dubai

Grand Hyatt Dubai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Major luxury hotel in major economically important city. --Oakshade 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment If all 5-star hotels deserved an article, simply based on 'luxury', we would have literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of articles such as this, with nothing truly notable about them. These are more wikitravel type articles, rather than wikipedia ones. --Russavia 16:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

5-star luxury hotels are notable. These are places where heads of states, celebrities and corporate CEOs stay and frequently important meetings/press conferences are there. These aren't like the corner Motel 6s. Just because there are a lot of them doesn't magically make them non-notable. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no practical limit to the number of topics covered. --Oakshade 06:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Oakshade. Also it's a prominent landmark [33] and maybe even the largest hotel in the middle east [34]. Kappa 22:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Re-read the landmark article, it 'culminates at the Grand Hyatt Dubai', it doesn't assert it being a landmark. As to being the largest, maybe doesn't work for WP, verifiability does, it either is or it isn't? --Russavia 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK, largest in Dubai. [35]. Kappa 23:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. Or does who owns the hotel establish notability? As to being a 5-star hotel, read Star (classification). Not a status that is formally awarded so while nice, not a verifiable fact. Could be a speedy delete as spam or empty. Vegaswikian 22:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "The Grand Hyatt’s five-star status is not in doubt" [36]. Kappa 23:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as blatant advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 19:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (fix format by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)))

[edit] Traders Hotel, Dubai

Traders Hotel, Dubai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:19, 29 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 keep. This was fully discussed two months ago here and no new arguments have been produced to support deletion. TerriersFan 20:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UEFA Champions League 2008-09

The first nomination may have failed, but I believe this still breaks WP:CRYSTAL it doesn't tell you anything on what is happening, the 2008 champions league isn't even fully decided yet. I think we should delete this until next year. The sunder king 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article contains a great deal of information. Why waste the effort that has been made out of some sort of crusade for anti-"Crystal ball" purity? The result of the last discussion was not even no consensus, it was a straight keep. Golfcam 21:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The last AfD was barely two months ago and was a unanimous keep. There's no real crystal balling (no-one's predicting who will win or anything), and for the record, you don't make a second AfD nomination by moving the old one, which breaks many links. The nom should have used {{afdx}} instead of {{afd}} to create a An "Articles for deletion/UEFA Champions League 2008-09 (2nd nomination)". An admin's going to have to clean all that up. --DeLarge 22:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong speedy keep. Kept through last decision. The only crystal thing in here is whether or not it will be played in May 2009. James Luftan ^contribs 23:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep About an event virtually certain to happen and contains verifiable information e.g stadium for final, so does not meet WP:CRYSTAL, previous discussion clearly showed this. Davewild 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Event will happen and much of the info about it is already known. Number 57 08:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I am usually unsupportive of such articles, per crystalballing. However, despite the article is still considerably short, it already features some meaningful and notable content. --Angelo 10:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Informative, nothing incorrect, and not crystalballing (as per section 1 of WP:CRYSTAL) as far as I can see Da-rb 20:19, 30 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 - no arguments to delete. --Coredesat 07:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Island Shangri-La

Island Shangri-La (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Major luxury hotel in important city. Having largest Chinese silk painting in the world is also an assertion of notability. The nom is simply cutting and pasting the same line to dozens of hotels they nominated for AfD. --Oakshade 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per all the hotel awards that it has won. Additionally, it is the tallest hotel on Hong Kong Island. It also houses the world's largest Chinese silk painting in the lobby. Luke! 00:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Oakshade and Luke. This is one of the most famous hotels in HK. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Kappa 03:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 00:39, 30 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 reverted to previous version, which was a disambiguation page. If the contributor of the graffiti artist article wishes to post an article on the tagger, he can re-create the article under a different name—which will undoubtedly be submitted to another AFD. ●DanMS • Talk 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jast

You can't have articles on grafiti writers! No notability, Incohrent mess. I hate to think what this website is coming to. The sunder king 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. You can have articles on graffiti artists if they're notable (Banksy for example), but there is no evidence that this artist passes notability guidelines. --Darksun 18:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Revert to this version, which was a legitimate disambiguation page. ●DanMS • Talk 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Never relised what had happened. The sunder king 20:40, 29 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 and merge.. Navou ^banter 02:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Landmark Mandarin Oriental Hotel

The Landmark Mandarin Oriental Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Mandarin Oriental. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The Landmark Mandarin Oriental and Mandarin Oriental Hong Kong are not the same hotel. Wasabian 08:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you actually follow the link, it links to the Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group, the holding group for the Mandarin properties. The Mandarin Oriental, Hong Kong has its own article. Luke! 15:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 00:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable Boutique hotel in major economically important city. Even USA Today profiled it [37]. --Oakshade 02:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The USA Today report is a travelogue, and provides nothing to notability of this hotel. --Russavia 16:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A travel report on the hotel by USA Today in itself provides indication of notability.--Oakshade 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand per above. Wasabian 08:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Mandarin Oriental, Hong Kong and clean up the latter for spammish content. Note that travel articles are inherently subjective in their coverage and as such should not be considered as reliable sources. Pascal.Tesson 19:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Part of the HK Wiki Project Tom M. 02:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 19:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] InterContinental Hong Kong

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

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - A major luxury hotel in an internationally important economic city is in itself an assertion of notability. Having the largest ballroom in Hong Kong adds to the notability. --Oakshade 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment find me one reference about the ballroom and I'll believe you.Garrie 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Being a 5 star hotel is not an inclusion criteria. Meeting WP:N or WP:CORP are inclusion criteria and this article in it's current form does neither.Garrie 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Ga. Vegaswikian 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep, nontrivial independent coverage here [38] and here [39]. Not to mention 100's of google new hits. Thanks the the spam nomination and spam delete votes without lifting a finger to actually check for notability. Kappa 08:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment The sources you have provided are travel guides. Do these in all reality make an entity notable? --Russavia 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Kappa 17:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly not. Just about every hotel on the planet is covered in multiple travel guides. It is in fact what we consider to be trivial coverage and in no way does it establish any sort of notability. These hotel reviews have no value when comes the time to construct a thorough article. Travel guides, contrary to scholarly work, have no responsibility for objectivity nor are they particularly reliable when it comes to information that doesn't relate to the price of a dbl room. Pascal.Tesson 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Economist thinks "The InterContinental is without doubt the best place to stay in Kowloon" and The Independent thinks it's one of the "Five Best Shopping Hotels in the world". Your assertion that "just about every hotel in the world" gets this kind of coverage is nonsensical. Kappa 01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my above comment: no indication that there is sufficient significant third-party coverage to build a proper encyclopedic article. Pascal.Tesson 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy close as deleted by Jaranda as "spam." —Kurykh 21:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Island Pacific Hotel

Island Pacific Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam by Umbrasquall (talk · contribs). Rhen recreate the redirect to Sino Group of Hotels. Pascal.Tesson 18:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Park Hotel

Royal Park Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of notability. WP:NOT#TRAVEL.Garrie 21:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no apparent notability. Pascal.Tesson 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Pacific Hotel & Towers

Royal Pacific Hotel & Towers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Luxury hotel in major economically important city. The Wall Street Journal wrote about extensively about it [40]. --Oakshade 16:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not the yellow pages. Speedy delete as spam. No assertion of notability. Vegaswikian 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this should even be speedy deleted as spam. I recommend reinstating the redirect to Sino Group of Hotels though. Pascal.Tesson 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

xtra note to closing admin: if deleted, the accompanying images need to be speedy deleted as unfree and unused. Pascal.Tesson 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong Gold Coast Hotel

Hong Kong Gold Coast Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Major luxury hotel in major and internationally important city. Even the New York Times wrote about it. [41]. --Oakshade 00:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The only thing the NY Times wrote about was that 2 hotels were opening. The article linked to does not assert notability. --Russavia 00:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability. This looks like a template was used to add a bunch of hotels. Vegaswikian 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, more or less copyvio of here [42] and presumably other places. Kappa 08:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable hotel. Keb25 09:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete seems to be the work of likely spammer Alvinfoo (talk · contribs). Pascal.Tesson 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Hyatt Hong Kong

Grand Hyatt Hong Kong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, major hotel. Hu Jin Tao stayed there. [43] Kappa 03:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Question And what did he do there that makes the hotel notable? Did he participate in a bed-in? Did he protect Tutsi from the Hutu? Please don't tell me that soon we can expect an article on the Burning Shore Hotel, based simply on the fact that Brangelina stayed there? --Russavia 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. Does the fact that Hu Jin Tao stayed there make it notable? If so, tell me how many hotels he stayed at. Vegaswikian 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Keb25 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as blatant advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City Garden Hotel

City Garden Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion as to why the hotel is notable. Russavia 17:57, 29 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. One 04:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baltic Star Hotel

Baltic Star Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is in violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Luxury hotel next to the Russian presidential palace, the Constantine Palace. The participants in the 2006 G8 summit, which included many heads of state, were housed here[44][45], for which this hotel was reconstructed for. --Oakshade 05:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The first link is a photo of 'some woman' at an exhibit. The second link mentions the building of the hotel, it doesn't actually state that heads of state stayed there but VIPs, even then simply because a 'famous' person has stayed there, doesn't give it notability as a hotel, there isn't a hotel in the world which couldn't claim a famous guest. --Russavia 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The photo is of Laura Bush at the Baltic Star Hotel. --Oakshade 15:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I know who it is, it was said half in jest. But half not. I can dig out a photo of Mahatir Mohammed at the Sheraton Langkawi Resort from the early 90s from one of my jaunts, but this does not require an article on the Sheraton Langkawi based upon that criteria only. That was the point I was making. --Russavia 16:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep involved in notable events. Places where notable events are held are notable. Spam can be dealt with by editing. Thus, many luxury hotels will in fact be notable. DGG (talk) 07:18, 30 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. This is a POV fork, and no one has satisfactorily addressed concerns about original research in line with policy or guidelines. --Coredesat 07:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quran and human evolution

Quran and human evolution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is essentially uncited material, with no real context or explanation. Oli Filth 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Quran is a well established document. We have added Quranic references to support the points listed on this page. We will continue to add more supporting material as needed.Sylvia Nemmers 1:23, 29 July 2007

Note: User:Snemmers is the original editor of the article.

• Delete No citations, Seems to lack much information. From my experience with the Quran it doesn't mention Human origins that much to begin with, especially "Evolution". Maybe a "Quranic creationism" or something would be more relevant. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Though the article does not assert much notability, it can be merged to the Qur'an.--NAHID 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do not delete What we will present is a will organized and logical Quranic evidence with material support. We need more time to finalize editing the page, give us a break!. Sylvia Nemmers 2:35, 29 July 2007
  • The Quran is not an independent, reliable source for information on an interpretation of the Quran! Oli Filth 21:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Extremely POV; the "Nobel Quran"? I suppose you meant "noble"? Anyhow, this is going to be 100% WP:OR if you "present a will organized and logical Quranic evidence with material support". Yeah, so the Earth was obviously created by Allah because surat 29:20 says "Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things." ([46]). You gotta love when religion tries to bend backwards to retrofit dogma with scientific legitimacy. --Targeman 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete Comment The topic is "Quran and human evolution" so religion is a core part of it. Sylvia Nemmers 5:07, 29 July 2007

• Delete as OR. Without reliable sources backing this up, it is pure original research. Also, Wikipedia has no user User:Sylvia Nemmers. This is in fact the sole author of the article, 67.164.132.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log). Cheers, Silly rabbit 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, 67.164.132.130 = Snemmers.

• Delete as unsourced OR. The author appears to be making up the material along the way and has made dozens of seemingly trivial edits. The one "reference" website's coauthor is apparently this article's author. —Travis^talk 01:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE Comment this is my first article and I am getting used to editing. I have added references that are authentic and I am a user "snemmers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.132.130 (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2007

Now I am logged in as Snemmers, I had been working without being logged in. I am still getting used to the process.

• DO NOT DELETE - I have added references that are authentic. And why is my "DO NOT DELETE" being blocked out. I think that is uncalled for. I add my comments, but I don't mark up other people's comments. I believe the article meets the criteria, and it should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snemmers (talk • contribs) 03:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment. Convention is that a recommendation (keep, delete, etc.) should only be given once by an editor. For ease of visual scanning, repeat recommendations by a single editor are stricken. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2) Please do not add multiple "do not deletes" to this discussion. One is enough for anyone. Also, please sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~). Thanks —Travis^talk 03:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Original research, synthesis by the original editor. Note that the article was created by User:Snemmers. The article currently provides one external link; the linked cite contains a paper co-authored by a S. Nemmers. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research --Haemo 04:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

*Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ornis (t) 05:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as valid article re the evolution debate. Possibly rename in due course, to a more "learned" title, tro appease the Euro-American-sentric editors. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A different title or a non-Euro-American-sentric [sic] POV will not change the fact that this original research is completely devoid of verifiable independent sources. The one reference given is hardly independent as it was coauthored by this article's author. That website, which appears to be its authors' interpretation of the Qur'an, also fails to reference any independent sources. —Travis^talk 10:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

But were it an erroneous interpretation, would not a Qu'ranic scholar have stepped up to say so ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with anything - expound? Sidatio 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No Qu'ranic scholar has stepped up to defend it, either, so I'm not sure what we can glean from this... Oli Filth 13:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete an article on the subject is appropriate, but this ingenious interpretation is hardly representative of the topic, and i cannot tell from the article to what extent it is a reproduction of the one source, or the author's OR.DGG (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete: It's really little more than unsourced original research. In its current state, I can't even see it being merged into anything. On the plus side, though, this would make a pretty good storyline for an RPG. Are you reading this, Square Enix? Sidatio 23:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• I have taken out all original research and left the verses of the Quran and the ideas that have been presented by Al-Tabari in his Tafsir which is a reliable source. There is no entry on this subject and what I have put is a start. Others can edit, that is what Wiki is all about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snemmers (talk • contribs).
  • Comment. That now renders the article a collection of excerpts from a published work with no "article" to hold it together. At best, it's now a Wikisource candidate, although it's so excerpted that I don't think that's appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sylvia Nemmers has been working awhile on this article, and deserves the right to keep improving it, with additional sources (including cites to Quranic scholars). The Quran, like the Bible, is its own source. Interpretations of the verses of either may need more than one persons view, of course. Mandsford 00:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There's no where near enough material here to justify its own article yet. Any thing worthwhile should probably go into Theistic evolution#Islam. ornis (t) 01:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Whilst the Quran may be used as a source for the literal phrases used as part of the analysis, it cannot be used as a source for the analysis itself, because that would be original synthesis on the part of the author of this page. There must be independent sources to show that this analysis has been studies by more people than just the author. Oli Filth 07:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Valid sources, and an importent topic, needs expantion. Exelionhunter 01:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

— Exelionhunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Comment As you might have guessed this is my first article. I will be working to make it a more complete discussion of the topic. I could use some time and suggestions rather than deletion requests. Snemmers 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As I suggested above, rather than trying to start an article from scratch, you should expand the Islam section of theistic evolution. If that section ever grows too large for the parent article it will be forked off into a new article.ornis (t) 01:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for your suggestion, but the topic is Quran and human evolution, not Islam and human evolution. The article presents verses in the Quran that deal with the topic of human evolution and what the original Quranic scholars said they ment. The article is not presenting the views of Muslims. Also Wiki is a search based resource and if this topic is merged with another article as you suggested, it will not be found when people are looking for what the Quran says about evolution.Snemmers 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Well, that's what redirects are for. In aid of which I'll change my vote to....
• Merge and redirect to Theistic evolution#Islam. ornis (t) 02:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. Navou ^banter 02:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eagles Nest

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

I believe this article is in violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, additionally with no assertion as to the notability of the subject. Russavia 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Moonriddengirl 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Eagle's Nest, a dab page, which has among other things, Hitler's alpine lodge, probably the best known Eagle's Nest named thing. Carlossuarez46 23:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Surely the issue of misdirection isn't at stake here. I have no problem with a rename, and changing this specific spelling to a redirect to the disambig. Ingolfson 06:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. "New Zealand's most expensive rental property" is hard to verify and subject to continuous change. An entry in the dab page seems suitable until the property gains some form of more reliable notability.Malathos 05:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep New references show notability above and beyond a normal travel destination (it also makes #7 on CCN money's top 10 world honeymoon destinations) Malathos 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Lonely Planet is not exactly a weak kind of source (for those not familiar with it much, it lists numerous high-priced places). It has also been listed as the most expensive rental property for multiple years. But I will find some other references as well. I also strongly contest that being the most expensive hotel does not assert notability. Why not, please? The "please don't include these" examples given in WP:NOT#TRAVEL are examples of trivial facts. Being the most expensive resort in a whole country is not. Ingolfson 06:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep of improved article - as noted above, I dug in a little deeper, and have now multiple references for the existing claims, as well as two major awards that the resort has received. The only thing I have excised is the actual prices, as these, fair enough, tend to change. Notability and verifiability is, I feel, now well-established, and I would ask all previous editors to reconsider their choice. I am still willing to rename it to Eagles Nest (New Zealand) and have it accessed mainly via the disambig, because as noted, there is neither commercial motive nor intention to misdirect. Its just an article that grew out of a trip to Russel two months ago. Cheers all - Ingolfson 10:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep according to improvements done already. Bearian 20:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-referenced for such a short article, with enough evidence of notability.--Huaiwei 09:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hollywood Sheet

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

Hoax article, created by same user as Bed As We Might, another hoax up for AfD. Google searches only turn up sheets of stamps and sheet music. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both. If not nonsense, not notable. James Luftan ^contribs 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I've seen this someplace in a humorous movie cliches writeup, but it's definitely not encyclopedic. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, page has a hoax :o McLarenJAB 14:41, 30 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 close It is indeed impossible to judge all these hotels simultaneously (although I have deleted the obvious spam). I'll renominate the rest separately. Pascal.Tesson 19:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Landmark Hotel

Golden Landmark Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I believe that these articles go against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. I can understand Raffles Hotel being on WP, as it is a historic building with heritage listing, but these hotels have limited encyclopaedic value, and do not assert of what importance they are. Russavia 17:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they too look like they go against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. None provide any references outside of hotel, opinion, tourist board websites.

Hangout@Mount Emily (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Conrad Centennial Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Damenlou Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Oriental Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Pan Pacific Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Ritz-Carlton Millenia Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Changi Village Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Albert Court Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Meritus Mandarin Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Orchard Parade Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Negara on Claymore Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Shangri-La Hotel Singapore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sloane Court Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Elizabeth Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete. Looks too much like spam, and a three-star rating isn't high enough to make it notable. Clarityfiend 17:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Close - There are far too many varied articles here to be batch AfD'd. Some are major important hotels and some are architecturally notable, ie The Ritz-Carlton Millenia Singapore. These all need to be separate. --Oakshade 17:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close and relist separately per above. These articles are far too varying in scope and quality to be bundled into one nomination. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:47, 29 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Obenst

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

Unsourced, unverifiable, maybe even hoax, from single-edit account: no Google or NewsBank hits. Gordonofcartoon 17:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• strong delete It is not specified what this perosn did to qualify as a 'hero'. Google search comes up blank and he has not been in the local (to Upton) press. I am surprised it failed speedy.• nancy • talk to me • 18:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If it were true that he somehow saved lives in the flood, the article might qualify for merging or redirection (or perhaps even keeping). However, with zero google hits it does appear to be a hoax.--Kubigula (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - I tagged this article with {{db-bio}} because it has absolutely no assertion of notability, even if the claims are true, and even if the article is rewritten to be encyclopedic. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be quite sad if heroic life saving deeds were not notable (i.e. worthy of note). Fortunately, if genuine, such actions lead almost invariably to media coverage (e.g. Wesley Autrey), and the complete absence of coverage in this case almost certainly suggests it's a hoax.--Kubigula (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not making a moral judgment here, and neither does Wikipedia. How many ER surgeons save lives everyday? Or policemen, firemen, EMTs, etc. I think it is a great thing (if this person exists), but Wikipedia notability standards clearly state "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Again, this article makes no assertions of the subject's notability. The sad fact is that coverage is far more existent on those who take lives as opposed to those who save them. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I should avoid sentimentality :). Still, there is a much lower threshold for an assertion of notability for purposes of avoiding speedy deletion than there is for a demonstration of notability in order to survive AfD. Someone engaged in the saving of lives as part of their job would usually not be newsworthy or notable. In contrast, someone who could be termed a hero who saved lives during a national emergency would almost certainly generate some coverage in reliable sources and potentially be notable. As it stands, this one appears to be some kind of personal story, or, more likely, a hoax.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point... but MAN we are over-analyzing this lame article. This discussion is probably the most notability this guy will ever get. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. We can debate the ethics and value of lifesaving when he's shown to exist. Gordonofcartoon 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - good on him for helping out, but without verification we can't really have an article, can we? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence that he exists. Though it would be a shame to delete it if he is real... but maybe that's what they want us to think. McLarenJAB 14:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Tony Fox. Bearian 20:32, 31 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. Nom withdrawn. Hadn't seen the billboard thingy. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie 18:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O.G. Black y Master Joe

O.G. Black y Master Joe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is about a former, not notable reggaeton duo. They have no awards and their discography is also not notable, so they fail WP:MUSIC. Two Google searches show nothing but their song's lyrics, so the article fails WP:V. I say delete.

I am also nominating the duo's albums, as they separately are also not notable:

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

Francotiradores 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sabotage (O.G. Black y Master Joe album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Los K-Becillas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

--Boricuaeddie 16:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete all, clearly a non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Albums seem to be independent (Amazon lists their label as "unknown"). Could be an A7 candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Kappa. Not only do they have charting albums, they also have one charting single in the U.S, thus marginally passing WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, 3 charting albums. [47] Kappa 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note: That album is for Master Joe, not for the duo. --Boricuaeddie 18:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry. --Boricuaeddie 18:20, 29 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 and protect. --Coredesat 07:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saw VI

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

Strong Delete, and prevent recreation until further notice. See WP:CRYSTAL. We had the same exact problem when Saw III was out; people were making articles for Saw IV. Now that Saw IV is coming out, there's an article for the sixth film. This needs to be deleted and protected until the right time occurs. CyberGhostface 16:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It should be noted that the sole reference for this article is a website called www.bloody-disgusting.com (see reference in article), which claims to have “multiple sources” for this information, but does not provide the sources. ●DanMS • Talk 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No IMDB or AMG listing, no reliable 3rd party proof. Pretty much Crystal at this time. SkierRMH 06:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There isn't even a Saw V article and it comes first! I would prefer the article to be deleted and re-done after a meaty article has been created for the prequel. — Movie Junkie 14:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC) ^{This originally came from the article's talk page.--CyberGhostface 16:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)}

In Addition: The current Saw V page is protected, I feel this page should also be protected too, to stop people creating this page in the near future. — Movie Junkie 10:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agree, what is the meaning of making it, i think the priority would be to make an article of Saw V instead and delete following page (Saw VI).--Morton Christopher 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC) ^{This originally came from the article's talk page. — Movie Junkie 16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One 04:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York State Sportswriters Association

New York State Sportswriters Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable publication dealing exclusively with high school sports with only 500 subscribers. Chengwes 16:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep High school sports attract huge media interest in the U.S. New York State has a population of over 20 million. Golfcam 21:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Those 500 subscribers are media and coaches, so circulation #s should be expected to be smaller than say the NY Times. Reliable sources appear to use NYSSA rankings as a gauge for notability [48] , [49]. Canuckle 21:20, 30 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' - G11/A7. Owen× ☎ 17:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qoof

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

Nonnotable website, article written in highly promotional language. Speedied 3 times, now recreated with some independent sources, but they all seem to be PR and the like. NawlinWiki 16:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 or G11 and salt. Not at all a notable site. I've tagged both the images for speedy as they don't have fairuse on them. Page's creator has also been reported to AIV for constant re-creation of this page (after warning). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete The article DOES have some cites but doesn't read Wiki. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 16:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt this time per WP:CSD#G11. Sources may be independent, but they still don't establish notability (blogs and PR).(edit conflict) —Travis^talk 16:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Still reads like a PR article. Chengwes 16:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Ads, non-notable website. Keb25 17:01, 29 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 g4, repost, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARANOiA (2nd nomination). NawlinWiki 16:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PARANOiA

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

Non-notable, re Wikipedia:Notability (music). Oli Filth 15:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note also that this article has been deleted three times in the past. Oli Filth 16:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Can't this be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4? —Travis^talk 16:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably. Unfortunately, I didn't notice that it's already been deleted until after I added the AfD tag. I don't think I can just remove it! Oli Filth 16:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Okay Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, recreation of article deleted twice previously —Travis^talk 16:39, 29 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. Peacent 02:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chewbacca defense

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

I like South Park as much as the next person, but I don't think we need an article on this one joke about Johnnie Cochran from the episode "Chef Aid." Wikipedia is not a slang directory and is also not a place to list gags on South Park. The phrase "Chewbacca defense" only refers to the scene on South Park, which is copyrighted. Anything else is simile or metaphor. The non-attributed AP article only briefly mentions the phrase. Slashdot is not a reliable source. Techdirt.com is not a reliable source. What makes Thomas O'Connor and Erin Kenneally reliable sources? A ZDNet blog is not a reliable source. And a Huffington Post blog is not a reliable source. There is already a page on Non sequitur (logic) and Non sequitur (rhetoric). This page should be deleted or merged into the "Chef Aid" article. Also, the numerous redirect pages Argumentum ad chewbaccum and Look at the silly monkey should also be deleted. I think this page would fit just fine on southpark.wikia.com, or everything2, or Urban Dictionary, but not on Wikipedia. It appears to me that most of the pages that link here are due to Template:South_Park and a userbox for South Park fans. The page was previously nominated for deletion on 2003-09-29, 2005-01-16, and 2007-01-28 which is why I named this the (4th nomination). And any votes to keep the article that repeat the joke from the episode should be ignored by the closing admin. Pixelface 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. A couple of the sources seem barely reliable enough, and the phrase does seem to have some use in society -- but I'm not finding much more than trivial mentions online, so this one appears to fail WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep or merge into Chef Aid. It does seem to have a couple of reliable sources, but it's pretty borderline. Darksun 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into Chef Aid. - Peregrine Fisher 20:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, again. This is commonly referred to online, people encounter the term and want to know what it means, and that is what Wikipedia is for. Merging into Chef Aid doesn't seem warranted IMO, the concept is usually referred to without that context and it would result in disproportionately large coverage about one concept from the episode within the article about the episode. Bryan Derksen 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not for finding out what things mean because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia articles on neologisms require independent sources that are about the term, not just use the term. I have not looked at the article again since the last AFD but it's important that this "that's what Wikipedia is for" business be addressed up front. Otto4711 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this article is a dictionary definition? It's quite clearly more than that, it provides way more information than a dictionary would. Bryan Derksen 07:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I stated quite clearly what I meant, that Wikipedia is not the place to find definitions. I further said that this term is a neologism and as such there need to be reliable sources that are actually about the term "Chewbacca defense." Sources that merely use the term "Chewbacca defense" do not support the existence of the article because they are not about the term. Otto4711 14:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep to me (and I'm no big SP fan). The sources in the article already establish notability (e.g. the Cochran obit and the various headlines which use the term), and I disagree with the nom's assertions that Slashdot and Techdirt are not reliable sources in this context; 38,000 Ghits, mostly blogs by the looks of things, but indicative of how widely it's pervading pop culture vernacular. Finally, in a previous AfD there was mention of a book about South Park & Philosophy which, according to a review in the Guardian discusses the term in great depth. When people are writing books about it, it's reached our notability threshold. --DeLarge 22:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Chef Aid - there is a limited notability for the subject. It is sourced, it has some notability but it probably doesn't deserve its own article--Cailil ^talk 23:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Again. I've heard lawyer's use it with alarming regularity. bd2412 T 00:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: If someone encounters the term online and wants to know what it means, they can use a search engine or dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or slang usage guide. Wikipedia should show context, so the term should be left in the Chef Aid article. The Chef Aid episode *may* be notable in part because of the "Chewbacca defense" scene -- which was mentioned in the book South Park & Philosophy and also in the AP article. Jokes and phrases that originated on South Park do not deserve their own encyclopedia articles -- they belong on Uncyclopedia or Urban Dictionary or a South Park wiki. This phrase is already present on Wiktionary. Much like the article/AFD for "Nigger guy", this article should be a redirect to the episode the term is from. --Pixelface 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as above. Completely agree; a trivial meme spawned from a television episode is not grounds for asserting enecyclopedic notability, nor is "I have heard lawyers using it." Eusebeus 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Has RS, barely notable, but squeeks by. the_undertow ^talk 03:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been done to death. Nothing has changed since the last nomination. —Xezbeth 05:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- much though the Cabal dislike it (because they didn't invent it), this has become a notable phrase and a portmanteau for the concept behind it. Notable ergo prima facie keep. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep geez, does this need to always have an AfD? The "usage" section alone shows this has enough notability for a Wikipedia article --L^ie! 11:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on the conclusion of the previous nominations. It seems that no new reasons to delete have surfaced, and so there is no reason to overturn the previous "Keep" results. Furthermore, additional references have been added in the intervening time between AfD's. The case to delete gets weaker and weaker on all fronts. Silly rabbit 12:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I came across this term quite frequently and didn't even know it was referring to South Park until after reading this article. It is a term used completely indepedant of its original source. The examples given above on what will follow are silly. They aren't used in every day articles like this phrase is, here [50], [51] and [52]. There has been 3 failed attempts to delete this article for the same reason. And what point is that reason invalid and turns into a vendetta? Turlo Lomon 12:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - there are no new arguements since the previos nominations for deletion. If this were an article solely about the joke in the show, then I would agree with deletion, but I think this is a case where a single joke has transcended the show and become a notable expression as shown by usage of the term per the references provided. In this case, I think it should be kept. Turlo Lomon should add his links to the articleIrishjp 12:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed encyclopedia, Pixelface would like you to believe that this is non notable. And he makes a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed encyclopedia, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a editor defending an article, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must keep! The defense rests.

  But seriously, it's notable. The sources showing its spread in popular culture support that. Will ^(talk) 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as in the context of the episode it's irrelevant, but it has clearly had an significant cultural impact. The Clawed One 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Eusebeus - never heard the term myself, may be certain US circles only (which makes it less notable)? Stephenb (Talk) 12:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: So we're going to completely ignore the "Usage" section on the article itself, and delete it because you haven't heard of it? -Longing.... 12:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment No, we aren't, and I didn't, and that's not why I agree with the Delete (which was per Eusebeus). The comment that the term might not be so notable outside the US is still valid to make, however. Stephenb (Talk)

Comment How so? Notability doesn't change based on Geographic location or language. Wikipedia has enough of an English speaking bias as is, we don't need Wikiffirmative Action to get rid of things that *aren't* notable elsewhere. I mean hell, how is almost any given TV show notable on Wikipedia then? Not very many of them are international. Wikipedia shouldn't be biased for the US, no, but we shouldn't be biased against it either. How are any of the given "* in the United States" articles noteworthy, by your judgment? --Longing.... 14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to drag me into an argument by using this as a straw man. I've made my point quite clear. Stephenb (Talk) 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - honestly now, I like this article as much as those asking for it to be kept, I laugh myself silly every time I read it. But there are too many "I like it" votes here. Just because "I like it" is not reason enough for this to have its own article. Merging and redirecting to Chef Aid makes sense for an encyclopedic entry. The usage section is lite, if we're going to abide by the spirit and the letter of notability a few mentions in the press and/or internet don't cut it. Either this is a South Park article or it is a trivia article. If its trivia it just doesn't deserve its own article. Full stop. If it's a South Park article it should be merged into Chef Aid--Cailil ^talk 13:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment so you're actually voting against the people voting to keep, and not the article? I'd agree it needs to be in Chef Aid-- if it hadn't far surpassed Chef Aid in terms of notability. The term Chewbacca defense has been used to the point where people that wouldn't have a clue what Chef Aid is know what it means. Look at D'oh!- it's usage outside of the Simpsons is probably even smaller than the term Chewbacca Defense. That doesn't mean it isn't a notable occurrence. As to the second part, at least ten reliable sources, one of which is CNN, including at least one Ph.D and three Juris Doctors are not reliable sources, that show the subject has notability, and is potentially capable of being a recognized legal term? --Longing.... 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not voting against anyone. My vote is, as I said on the spirit and the letter of WP:N; its also in good faith. I'm not denying that there is limited notability here. Nor am I saying that every-one whose saying "keep" is saying "I like it".

The reliable source issue is interesting because if you go through them only 1 (www.techdirt.com) is specifically about the subject. The others mention it in passing - including the Johnny Cochran obituary and the "Case of the Trojan Wookie". At this point it has to be asked what is the scope of the sources and are they non-trivial - in other words is the coverage of the subject serious and in-depth enough for it to have an encyclopedia article of its own? The Juris Doctors presentations use the chewbacca defence as a pop culture reference, to explain a specific use of the plea "mal-ware" in digital crime cases. Also the D'oh preceedent is not neccessarily a grounds for keeping this--Cailil ^talk 15:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Like I said in the nomination, I seriously question whether the sources in the article are reliable. And the CNN reference doesn't mention the term "Chewbacca defense". If you say it's a recognized legal term, you'll have to provide a citation. The Kenneally reference is an unclear Powerpoint presentation. What makes Kenneally a reliable source? The O'Connor reference are uncited course notes that have not been peer-reviewed. So we're left with a mention in an AP article (which merely refers to the Chef Aid episode) and a mention in a book called "South Park & Philosophy" (a book about South Park in general, not just the term) -- even if we accept those sources as reliable, they are not enough sources to warrant an encyclopedia entry for the phrase. We must cite *reliable* secondary sources ABOUT the term, not just articles that USE the term. The term doesn't need to be in Wikipedia for it to actually exist. And as an aside, "D'Oh!" is in the Oxford English Dictionary. --Pixelface 15:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Turlo Lomon. --Naha|^(talk) 14:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per this legal principle. -- But|seriously|folks  17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DeLarge. <<-armon->> 04:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep again per comments at previous discussions. Nothing's changed. --- RockMFR 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This nomination does not present anything new and does not make sense, therefore you must acquit. Burntsauce 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This isn't an article about the South Park episode or the joke. This is an article about the legal strategy that has been used, or has been alleged to have been used, in real life, in very important cases. The result is that there's more than enough material to create a well-referenced 'usage' section that doesn't even refer to South Park itself. Bastin 21:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's term that has grown outside the boundaries of the show itself. It can be used like "Neuman!" from Seinfeld (or about 1000 other bits from Seinfeld). --Ubersky 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I was all set to delete this one. A darts team in Augusta Chronicle was named Chewbacca defense in 2000. A few writers used it in analogies. However, I looked at the article and see good referencing (at least enough to survive AfD). Coupled with the idea that use of the Chewbacca defense analogy will continue. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ladies and gentlemen evaluating this supposed AfD, it does not make sense that there would be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" talking about how an eight-foot tall Wookiee would be used as a legal defense. The nominator would have you believe that sources like Poking the Wookie: the Chewbacca Defense in Digital Evidence Cases, and the chapter "The Chewbacca Defense: A South Park Logic Lesson" in South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today don't establish notability. But ladies and gentlemen evaluating this supposed AfD, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must keep. The defense rests. DHowell 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 20:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional laws and rules

List of fictional laws and rules (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT - Indiscriminant list of fictional' laws. The scope of this article is unmanagably large and serves no useful purpose. Would be more useful if it only included fiction that incorporated a fictional law as a core theme or plot device, but even then it would be a stretch. Unencyclopedic content, unmanageable scope, zero utility. /Blaxthos 13:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rule #1: delete all useless and unmaintainable lists without mercy. Rule #2: sentence their authors to the pillory on the largest public square in town. Rule #3: Spray the words "List of" with repellent and cover them with bear traps and land mines to discourage further interest. --Targeman 14:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR and an arbitrary list. - Cyborg Ninja 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:OR and WP:IINFO, also a failure of WP:V. Definitely a non-notable intersection here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete- pure listcruft. --Boricuaeddie 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is original research and, theoretically, could get full of laws made up one day in school. Useight 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see why tbings like the Prime Directive and the Three Laws of Robotics can't be grouped together. I'd like to know some of their non-English equivalents. Kappa 03:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. While the article does little that couldn't be accomplished by a category, there is no sense in which this is OR; there is no novel position being taken or advanced on the basis of the list. WP:OR is so overused and misapplied as a critique that any nomination for deletion on its basis needs to be looked at skeptically. RandomCritic 14:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no objective relationship between all of these items beyond the (unspoken) relationship that almost all of these "rules" come from fantasy/gaming/science fiction sources. In other words, one can infer that this is a fandom collection of items that are all familiar to the authors but have no other relationship. Not precisely OR except to the extent that the authors may have based criteria on "if you like this genre concept, you may also like these others", but lacking any scholarly work on the subject of "the prevalence of theoretical rulesets in fiction" (or some such), there doesn't appear to be any argument for linking all of these exclusive items under one list. -Markeer 14:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This list can grow to infinite size and is not neccesary. The Placebo Effect 14:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment isn't this why there're categories?

132.205.44.5 21:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Kind of, but the category can't explain anything about them, in particular which work of fiction something comes from. Kappa 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Even fictional laws have their adherents. Obedience to a fictional law is optional, but they're often worth citing as an expression of someone's notion of what should be public policy. The "Prime Directive" is a, well, prime example; and, in fact, arguably influences perceptions on what to tolerate in other cultures. While I doubt that any of these would become legislation, the ideas that they represent are worth noting. Mandsford 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to Mandsford: If someone published an article about what fictional laws suggest as wish-fulfillment on the part of certain authors, in any peer reviewed journal of Psychology, Sociology, Literature or Political Science, I would certainly think that citation could add to an article. However, lacking any such citation to a secondary source, speculation on the significance of these laws is just that: speculation. I agree that there is certainly room for research on the subject you describe, I just don't think Wikipedia is the place to do, or present, that research. -Markeer 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Perfectly explained. Bravo. /Blaxthos 20:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bed As We Might

Bed As We Might (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Likely hoax; creator wrote that the subject is "popular, but nearly unknown," and another editor added Template:Hoax after noting that the title is not found on IMDB or Google. BassoProfundo 13:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax and patent nonsense. No google or imdb hits whatsoever. —Travis^talk 16:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Ditto. How could something be popular, yet "nearly" unknown? James Luftan ^contribs 17:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Laugh at the oxymoron “...popular, but nearly unknown movie”, then delete as non-notable and unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanMS (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 July 2007

My apologies for neglecting to sign, and thanks to TravisTX for adding the {{unsigned}} tag. ●DanMS • Talk 21:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - fails to assert notability, unsourced, and should probably be considered patent nonsense. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no IMDB or AMG listing, zippo on the ghits as well. Smells hoaxiful to me :) SkierRMH 06:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - seems like hoax, per above. RaNdOm26 10:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. One line? Sheer laziness. McLarenJAB 14:32, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Depictions of God in popular culture

Depictions of God in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - Nominated once previously for deletion and kept because of the earnest protestations that it could be "cleaned up." Said "clean up" did not happen and the article remains another laundry list trivia dump directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 13:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Actually, the last AfD debate also showed evidence of a consensus for deletion, and probably should have been closed as delete as well. The problem with this article, to put it simply, is that God is present in so much of our cultural works, in some form, that we can certainly consider God to be part of pop culture. But, at the same time, this makes it less and less interesting to try to list specific examples: such examples are potentially limitless. Of course, there might be potential for a real article on this subject, but this is not the start of such an article. Mangojuice^talk 14:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment could you elaborate on we can certainly consider God to be part of pop culture? You can do it on my talk page if you wish - interesting idea. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 16:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Messy, pointless and random. Beyond hope of redemption. Golfcam 21:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We should have an article on this topic, but this isn't it, and this isn't even a basis for it. JulesH 22:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as another one of those unsourced trivia-filled IPC articles.--JForget 23:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TRIVIA. Eusebeus 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as trivia. Will ^(talk) 22:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I guess a lightning bolt is coming at me, but I see nothing silly or blasphemous about this article. George Burns, Morgan Freeman, and others have portrayed God, and there's a wide leeway in popular culture for depicting something that few of us have actually seen. Not as common as the portrayal of Heaven in pop culture (which is itself fascinating), but how a film producer chooses to represent the Almighty says a lot about his or her own cultural influences. I'll hate to see this one go. Mandsford 01:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Crazytales▼▼(talk) 05:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional astronauts

List of fictional astronauts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT - Indiscriminant list of fictional astronauts. These sort of articles have no utilitarian or encyclopedic value; the scope of this article is so broad that it is unmaintainable and useless. We're not a collection of everything that ever was (especially when dealing with fiction, or "things that never were, but someone imagined"). /Blaxthos 13:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is a well-organized, well-maintained and reasonably comprehensive list, with clearly defined parameters (it is not "indiscriminate"), which is relevant to a real research topic: the presentation of the astronaut as a fictional archetype. There is no good reason for deleting this list. We have on Wikipedia lists of fictional doctors, fictional scientists, fictional Presidents and Vice Presidents, computers, diseases, schools, newspapers, spaceships et cetera. Why not a list of fictional astronauts? RandomCritic 14:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Noted that you are the primary author of the article.  ;-) /Blaxthos

  Noted that you are the nominator of the article. In other words, this is not an argument. His opinion is as good as yours. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Agreed, I see nothing wrong with authors defending their own articles. I've done it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  I agree with TenPoundHammer about editors defending articles they started, except it must be taken into consideration that articles are no longer their own. Useight 00:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  My intent was never to give the impression that anyone's opinion is less valuable than another, but rather that people shepharding/authoring articles often may tend to ignore the rules in favor of stuff they like. /Blaxthos 16:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  I am not the "author"; I did not create the article. I'm just one of several editors. No rules have been ignored; however, there seems to be a mania for inventing "rules" that don't exist, misinterpreting existing rules, and mistaking essays for policy. RandomCritic 16:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, let me try again. You're the editor with the most number of edits to the article. Besides that, I think this article becomes a problem of scope, WP:RS, and WP:OR. How are you deciding what is an astronaut? How come Jean Luc Picard isn't mentioned? Or Chewbacca? It becomes very hard to maintain a list about fictional astronauts when there is little operationalization of the term and the people in question don't exist. My major point is that this is horribly incomplete (at best), and an unreferenced pile of sci-fi references at worst. I doubt anyone is ever going to search wikipedia for "List of fictional astronauts", and I don't see any analysis of the "astronaut archetype" (this is, after all, a list; such would be violating WP:OR anyway). /Blaxthos 16:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  I have no idea how many edits I have made. A great many of them have been cosmetic, relating to the shape of the tables and the ordering of material. However, as nominator has already conceded that this is an irrelevant point, I don't see why he is pushing it.

  While being an editor of the article may be held to compromise my objectivity, it has this advantage: I know the shape and scope of the article a lot better than nominator. Had nominator bothered to read the talk page of the article, he would have seen there set out a specific set of criteria for inclusion. There is no problem of scope, and "what is an astronaut" is clearly defined, to wit:

  • A "fictional astronaut" is a space traveller appearing in works of fiction who is:

    1. Human

    2. On a flight originating from Earth

    3. Living during the early Space Age, i.e. between the beginnings of real space travel and the near future (say c. 1960-2020).

  And for marginal cases there are the following preferred criteria:

  • 4. Part of a real space program (like NASA) or a fictional knockoff of the same.

    5. Preferably using space travel technology within the realm of the possible. Preference should be given to astronauts depicted using real technology (e.g. Apollo, Soyuz, Space Shuttle) or close fictional knockoffs of the same.

  That is why you don't see Chewbacca or Jean-Luc Picard. The list is, within its stated boundaries, if not perfectly complete then at least containing most of the major works in which fictional astronauts appear.

  Of course there is no "analysis". This is a list. What I said was that this kind of list is relevant to someone doing research, e.g., on the presentation of astronauts in various media. And yes, people do search wikipedia for "List of fictional astronauts"; the fact that nominator isn't one of them is irrelevant. Nominator further claims that the list is "unmaintainable" -- a claim proven false by the fact that the list both has been and continues to be maintained. In short, every one of nominator's claims is either untrue or not grounds for deletion.RandomCritic 16:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, currently, there appears to be a sort of "hype" of nominating lists for deletion, whereas lists are valuable parts of this encyclopedia as they have many advantages over categories (e.g. allowing redlinks, references, sorting other than A-Z and table-like formatting). This particular article certainly is not "indiscrimate", there are obvious criteria for inclusion. Neither are "unmaintainable and useless" arguments for deletion. The second is just an opinion of the nominator, the first is also true for many articles in Wikipedia that wouldn't dare delete and therefore certainly not policy. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Who cares about fictional astronauts? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - indiscriminate and arbitrary and potentially limitless. Loosely associated directory. Not seeing the point of trying to list everything that has a fictional astronaut in it, nor am I understanding the rationale in the selection of these fictional astronauts and not others, nor why some characters in space are considered "astronauts" while other characters in space are not (see Moonraker, which lists Bond and Goodhead but not Drax or Jaws for example) nor what it is this list of characters is supposed to tell us about fictional astronauts, the medium in which they appear, their relation to each other or the real world. An actual verified article on how the representation of astronauts has changed pre- and post-space race would no doubt be fascinating. This list of random astronauts is not. Otto4711 16:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to comment on your "relation to the each other or the real world". When I first created the entry for the astronauts from the novel Voyagers, I had this line as part of a rather lengthy description: "Stoner's ride, as the first American on a Soyuz, predates Norm Thagard's actual trip on Soyuz TM-21 by 14 years." Do you feel that inclusions like this improve the article? Thanks. --EarthPerson 20:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• See notes above. The list is not indiscriminate. The criteria are perhaps "arbitrary" but no more so than the definition of the word astronaut itself. The list is potentially limitless, but only insofar as people may continue to publish books or shoot films with astronaut characters. There is nothing "random" about the list, although it is doubtless missing a number of less-well known works; however, lists are always works in progress and do not need to be complete to be included in Wikipedia. The essential quality a list needs to have is strong criteria for inclusion, which this list possesses. RandomCritic 16:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  The essential quality that an article needs to have is meeting all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A list may be perfectly formatted per WP:LIST and still be unacceptable for not adhering to other policies and guidelines. You have not addressed the associational issues with this article, namely, that the things on the list have nothing in common beyond including a spaceman. Otto4711 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  A spaceman of the space age--87.227.77.85 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  A fictional spaceman of the space age. /Blaxthos 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  The last criticism by Otto4711 happens to be untrue; the items listed are fictions about human exploratory space travel in one way or another (rather naturally). However, as this is a List of fictional astronauts, then of course the common thread is going to be the presence of a fictional astronaut. Commenter suggests, via nebulous references to "associational issues", that this isn't a valid criterion for a list. Given that Wikipedia contains many other lists of fictional people by occupation, and given that the category astronaut is itself quite notable and distinctive (much more so, I should say, than "doctor" or "scientist"), the criticism lacks strength. RandomCritic 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has other lists like it is unpersuasive. I note that any number of similar lists (under a title like "___ in popular culture") have been or are about to be deleted for the same WP:NOT#DIR concerns that aren't being addressed here. The notability or distinctiveness of real astronauts is irrelevant to whether this article should stand or fall. The fact remains that you have not demonstrated that the association between, for instance, fictional astronaut Victor Caroon from "The Quatermass Experiment" is in any way related to, say, fictional spy-who-happened-to-go-into-space James Bond from Moonraker or that either of them is in any way related to fictional astronauts Homer Simpson or Barney Gumble. What do these astronauts, drawn from across multiple media and multiple genres, tell us about being a fictional astronaut, or portraying a fictional astronaut, or about the media or genre from which they are drawn, or each other, or the world? Otto4711 19:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The criteria seem fairly definite to me, and the list isn't going to become unmanageably long. I don't see a burning need for it, but I haven't seen a strong argument for deletion. Clarityfiend 17:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not at all arbitrary, and it is not WP:OR either. - Cyborg Ninja 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I was just in need of the title to a particular story, for professional reasons, and all I had to go on was the name of one character, and the fact that an alien spacecraft and a soyuz were involved. And, hey presto! - there's the title, first up on Wikipedia. Which startled me. In a good way. One can never tell *what* seemingly valueless chunk of information, may suddenly be vitally useful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.40.149 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 July 2007
• Keep. Fictional astronauts seem to be a notable topic to me, and therefore I see no reason not to have a list of them. Enough information is included in the list that organisation as a category would not work as well. Seems like a prime example of what a list should be used for. JulesH 22:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per JulesH reasoning. A category of this would lead to numerous stubs that most likely would not qualify as articles. And yes, I'm a sometime contributor to this list. --EarthPerson 21:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've been reading The Return by Buzz Aldrin and John Barnes, and it occurs to me that most fictional astronauts are portrayed with the input of persons knowledgable about the topic. Along the way, we are (subversively) taught lessons about physics, astronomy, and other science that we normally would not have learned in school. The article makes an excellent navigation tool for those instances. Mandsford 01:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as obvious A7 (non-notable bio). ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christine Giannobile

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

Does not meet criteria in WP:BIO. This may be more appropriate for MySpace. Ground Zero | t 13:28, 29 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). —David Eppstein 16:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Morales (Australian designer, artist)

Victor Morales (Australian designer, artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable person, Does not pass WP:BIO and it is spam user that created it is same person as subject. ExtraDry 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, numerous Google searches turn up nothing relevant. Article was created and heavily edited by User:Victormorales, which is not a reason for deletion in and of itself, but is certainly worrying. I doubt that the relevant WP:RS can be found. Lankiveil 13:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:53, 29 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 keep under WP:SNOW given the nomination has been withdrawn and the article improved by User:Yellowdesk. Capitalistroadster 03:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 in music

2008 in music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Chock to the brim with crystalballery and rumourmongering. Only 12 entries in the entire list are referenced. I don't honestly think that the article/list is worth saving in its present state. Currently, it only serves as a hoaxer/sneaky vandal magnet. Kurt Shaped Box 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is jumping the gun by a long way. --Malcolmxl5 14:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Needs to be re-written and sourced, but it's no different from films that are expected to be released next year (IE in just over 5 months time). Saying it's a vandal magnet doesn't hold water, otherwise we might as well close Wikipedia fullstop. Lugnuts 17:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Malcolmxl5. - Cyborg Ninja 17:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but delete all of the unsourced statements/listings, which I have just now done. -- Yellowdesk 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not sure about speculation, but let's just keep the article just in case a user wants to add a confirmed album (or something) by a band that could release a new album next year, although we still almost got five months before 2008 happens. Alex 18:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as long as only sourced information is allowed. T Rex | talk 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's almost 2008 already. Golfcam 21:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment thanks to the efforts of the two editors today, the article is now in a much better and more manageable state (cheers guys!). May I withdraw my AFD nomination? --Kurt Shaped Box 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Of course, only those which is confirmed and sourced should stay, which is the case right now. So I have no problem with this article.--JForget 23:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)